The following is a direct quote from a couple paragraphs from chapter 10 in my new book, "CONSEQUENCES." They are $11.95 each delivered, or wholesale 14 for $98, or $7 each, delivered to the same location. Send check to Don Stott, 222 S. 5th St, Montrose, CO 81401. So much for that! Now for the quote.
"The unfortunate consequences of the jury system in America, are bad verdicts, absurd judgments, and enriched lawyers with negligible scruples. To stop the consequences of injustice in America, the British system should be implemented. The British not only allow the judge to select the jury, question witnesses in front of the jury, but perhaps most importantly, the loser pays. In England, if you bring a frivolous lawsuit and lose, you pay not only your own legal fees, but the winner's. If America would implement this, above the obvious objections of the American Bar Association, it would reduce court backlogs, frivolous lawsuits and the number of lawyers. In addition to that, if tort reform were passed at both state and frderal levels, lawsuits for absurd reasons and judgments would be impossible. Unfortunately, most legislators are also lawyers, and wouldn't think of voting against their own profession, so it probably won't happen, and John Q. Public will continue to pay theought the nose for every single item he buys. All consumer products have the cost of lawyers and lawsuits built into their prices.
"The main problem with the current trial by jury, is that it is necessary to have a unanimous verdict to convict a criminal. We are so used to that system, few have ever questioned it. The Constitution says nothing about a unanimous verdict. Amendment 7 of the Bill of Rights reads, "In suits of common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.". In other words, a man has the right to a jury trial, not a unanimous jury trial. The Supreme Court isn't unanimous, and neither are military tribunals, other multi-judge panels, or some civil jury trials. Elections aren't unanimous, and for that matter, I can think of no other segment of our civilization which requires unanimous anything to be passed or enabled. Why not a 65% vote for a jury verdict? Why does it have to be unanimous? The consequences of requiring a unanimous verdict, are that thousands of guilty are set free each year."
See, a couple of concepts most have never thought of or given a second thought to, but both are totally logical and reasonable. The book is full of such things, all 24 chapters and 276 pages. Hope your Labor Day Weekend is pleasant!