There is an ongoing debate pertaining to the introduction of professional jurors and keeping the current system in place. Those in favor of the implementation of a professional jury system argue that juries should be made up of people with in depth understanding of the laws and new technologies, they say that people bring their bias views into the courtroom and because both the defense and prosecution can dismiss a juror by challenges or cause they are able to stack the selection in their favor, were as professional juror would challenge this process greatly. Professional jurors may also be more representatives to the defendants peers they non professionals. Those that argue to keep the current system in place say that the short falls throughout history have been addressed and changes continue to be made. They argue that professional jurors already exist today and that many studies past and present conclude that with the system today, judges and juries both agree on verdicts for many of the cases they sit on. The jury pool or selection is a topic of debate because the selection is pulled from a variety of sources to include voter registry, voter lists, tax rolls, telephone directories and so forth. This list excludes people that are recent residents, minors, and people who can’t speak or write English. Some states go further and excuses even more people from jury duty such as the old and those in poor health and economic hardships. Certain occupations will also exclude people from being selected for jury duty these include such occupations as doctors, government workers and military Can the jury really be made up of peers if certain people are excused or not even considered?
Early on in the
nation’s history of juries, only the most educated citizens were considered to serve. Now the current system allows for the educated to be dismissed from the jury pool The peremptory challenges or voir dire processes like most things are...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document