I think juries should have more than six people on them...

[Demoiselle]

I was very surprised to hear that the Zimmerman jury was so small. Here we have 12, plus alternates. It just seems to me that a larger number leads to a broader discussion, and gives better odds for a more sensible conclusion. (If you're guessing I'm not impressed with the jury's decision in Sanford, you're right.)

[quinnox]

1. And no way should it be 6 women

that is bullshit, in my humble opinion. At least have it divided 3 men, 3 women.

[Demoiselle]

4. You're right.

Men and women often do approach things differently, and I think the differences help clarify issues in a discussion. I've had one experience as a juror on a pretty serious criminal case, and I liked the way we worked together, men and women. We also had tremendous variety of professions/occupations/formal education levels on that jury, and I think it made us very good as a thinking group. There were also twelve of us...a much better number than six, imo.

[quinnox]

8. Neat observations

I have never been a juror myself, so that was interesting to hear.

[davidn3600]

11. There are studies that show men and women look at things differently

So yes, that's something to consider to. If a man was on that jury, perhaps he would have presented a different angle that the women didnt see.

Im not suggesting this verdict would be different. Im just saying that in general, juries are better when made up from different perspectives. This jury was made up of mainly white, middle class, women with the age slightly on the older side. So there doesn't seem like there was a whole lot of conflicting opinions.

[quinnox]

13. exactly, I agree completely

[darkangel218]

2. How about 6 judges, instead of 6 bias, cluless citizens??

[Nye Bevan]

3. So just throw away a system that dates back to Magna Carta?

Because of the verdict in this one case?

[darkangel218]

5. Jurors have been wrong way too many times.

And it was just a sugestion. With the abundance of media everywhere, jurors are going to be bias one way or another. Times have changed, maybe we should change this too.

[Travis_0004]

7. Do you realize how difficult it is to ammend the constitution?

[darkangel218]

10. Yeeps.

But it can be done. I think

[TheLion]

6. Why have more jurors?

Anyone think ten white and two hispanic women would have done any less obvious a job of exonerating the killer of an unarmed black male?

[Igel]

9. So do I.

But in lots of places it's hard.

There's cost involved.

There's space involved.

And then there's the time and effort needed to select 12 + alternates. With the downside that during sequestration there are 12 possible sources of outside information and not 6. And if you all have to be on time there are 12 people who might be late instead of 6.

But the worst thing is the public: Getting people to serve on juries is difficult, and a lot of those who do are retirees, students, and those whose jobs pay them for the time off. That's very often government employees. But they should be "peers," and while strictly speaking we're all peers of each other, the set of those who can easily take off time is a bit skewed.

[treestar]

12. Amen

The reason for 12 was to avoid prejudice having its sway.