PrincessSezMe
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2012
- Messages
- 2,112
- Reaction score
- 2
Since I have served as a juror I have come to the conclusion that a simple IQ test and simple question test should be given potential jurors during the selection process. I think they should have to be qualified to serve on a jury, period. I've seen jurors who I thought had smoked entirely too much MJ over the years and I've seen some who had absolutely no clue why they were on a jury. Some of them just had this blank look on their faces and couldn't recall even the most obviously simple evidence shown during the examinations. Some want to try the case in the juror room only they make up the evidence in their own minds. Some of them don't understand any of the instructions at all. Some of them can't even read the instructions. Think about it, these jurors are deciding actual life and death cases. Scarey.
Snipped just the last part, because that was awful. I wanted to comment on the first part of your post. I don't think an IQ test is the answer because that doesn't really tell you much about a person's reasoning skills in a jury situation. I think when the court is appointing a jury, prospective jurors should go through a basic test to see if they can properly comprehend basic legal instruction. I'm sure that would add time and cost to jury selection, but at least there would be people sitting on the jury that can understand the basic concepts of circumstancial evidence, reasonable doubt, and premeditation. Until they have enough people qualified to do that, they would not seat a jury...especially in a capital case. Just a thought, and MOO.
If there are any of our lawyers around I would love to hear from them on what they think about that.