Supporters of the person would just vote non-guilty and opponents would just vote guilty. It would just result in hung juries over and over.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    jury selection is a very tedious process where every juror is interviewed by the judge and possibly both sides. They get whittled down by the court before being fully assigned, and then the prosecution and defense get to boot a certain number of jurors.

    advising on jury selection is actually very lucrative business with both sides dishing out massive amounts of cash to make those checks.

    in any case, in this situation, it’s not that they’re looking for unbiased jurors, it’s that they’re looking to balance out the biases of the individual jurors with jurors of apposing bias. I mean, you’d have to be living under a rock at this point to not have a bias as far as trump is concerned.

      • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not balanced by a single person. The lawyers from both the prosecution and the defense do it adversarialy.

      • steakmeout@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What if you die stepping out of the shower? All choices have consequences and nothing is perfect, at some point you have to accept that certain things are not and cope anyway.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are. One is the prosecutor and the other is the defense.

        Judges normally follow a very strict procedure on who to kick, like people that may have worked for trump or family, etc, so it’s at least supposed to be objective. The lawyers are the ones sorting subjectively

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You can’t just balance out the bias though.

      If one juror just plain will not return a guilty or not guilty verdict, then the whole trial is for naught.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty sure it’s a hung jury and they do it again (or bring in an alternate that’s been in the trial watching every thing as well.)

        You’re right it’s a problem. Would you prefer trial by combat?

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d prefer trial by ordeal. Hog tie him and toss him in a pond. Sinking? Innocent. Floating guilty.

            The problem is this system would almost certainly opress more people.

            Our current system is quite flawed. But it’s not nearly as flawed as it could be