I can see pros and cons to having a “jury of one’s peers. The term "peers" is often interpreted to mean people of approximately your age, with similar religious beliefs, earning about the same income and having been born in a similar society. One that is of equal standing with another: EQUAL However, the jury pool from which jurors are selected for a criminal trial isn't selected from a database using those types of demographic filters. Rather, the jury pool is selected randomly from the local community.
A jury of your peers means a random selection of the people who live in and around the community where the trial will be held. The final jury may consist of people much older or younger than you; people of very diverse religious beliefs; people earning below the poverty level, as well as those earning in the millions, and all income brackets in between. And now there is a very strong concern about having professionals serving on juries because of what outside expertise they may bring to the table during deliberations.
This means that both the prosecutions and the defense attorneys who screen potential jurors are adverse to having one of these career people serve. The jury member’s might look like you, talk like you, but it doesn't mean they came through with the same point of view that you do. I should indeed be judged by peers who can understand my life experiences and who can adequately pass a verdict in keeping with the severity or depravity of my alleged crime. And here I respectfully disagree.
I don't want my jury to be a bunch of people just like me I want a jury of people who will listen to and evaluate the evidence, deliberate with the other jurors, find out points of view that differ from their own by virtue of other people's life experiences, and come to an agreement on the verdict. Now, imagine the practical problems of this in the typical American city. Imagine what the polling would have to be like to find all of the very basic requirements. And then you'd have to have proofs of these facts.
It's a pain now, so consider having to show up with school transcripts, a list of everywhere you've ever lived complete with the population data from that area, and a notarized copy of your family tree (for example) Would it be a better resolution to have a defendant walk into a courtroom to be faced with a prosecution who has met with and seen jurors on numerous other professional tasks and has an understanding of how that particular jury will process the information?
There's no way I'd trust them to adequately judge me.. I'd rather have a prosecutor present the case to a bunch of people he/she doesn't know, as is done now. The prosecution has the burden of proof. If a panel if professional jurors had seen either the prosecution or defense runs a good success record, they might just sleep through my trial based on the attorneys' past record. Despite the logistical problems, I believe a jury should only be composed of people who take an interest in their community I would much rather have jurors from the voter registration list. They are more responsible and more conscientious people; Instead of getting people who don't want to participate in governmental operations.
They get on juries and their intent is to disrupt the system or not to participate. I do believe should defendants choose to have a jury rather than a judge to decide the outcome. It seems judges convict a larger percent of the time, while the jury conviction rate is a lot lower. Although our jury system may not be perfect and is in a continuous state of change, the concept of having “a jury of one’s peers” determines the outcome of each case still perseveres our constitutional rights.