The first sentence is:

“It may be your civic duty, but ***jury duty sucks*** and people are always looking for a way out of it.”

I personally don’t like to avoid jury duty myself. I don’t have children and I usually can stand to lose a day of pay. It would be helpful if the courts were more understanding in the cases of single parents or people in financial difficulty. I learned a lot from my experience as a juror.

Now that I reread the comments – who are you quoting?

What I don’t get is why you, or anyone for that matter, would spurn the opportunity to be on a jury in the first place! If ever I needed a juror, I hope it ain’t you.

http://dergeis.livejournal.com/285988.html

I’ve had a cop lie about something I had done (speeding in a school zone.) It turned out that this particular GROUP of cops were lying about just about everyone driving through that particular school zone. All of the cases that citizens chose to dispute were ruled in their favor. However, those who chose not to fight in court did not have their cases dismissed. They accepted their alleged guilt and paid the fine.

Everyone has their own agenda and I would not trust one over another just because of their experience or their authority. Experience does count for something. It can count for a lot. But if that person also has a personal stake in the outcome, that can throw all that experience, and the respectability that experience would earn, out the window.

For the average middle class suburban white guy, life is quite different than it is for some others, and I like to think that I look at the big picture.

But you may be right – I may just be too cynical. Maybe that’s what happens when you change from being an “angry young man” into an “angry old man”.

I think you’re being to a little too cynical.

I’m not arguing that cops should be believed because they’re authorities or expert witnesses. Nor am I allowing past experiences with police to bias by perceptions of them.

If you had two witnesses: one is a cop, the other isn’t. That’s all you know about them. Whose testimony is more creditable? A police officer who has been trained to gather evidence or a person who hasn’t.

Unless you think 50% of cops are lying pricks or that their training has no bearing on their ability to be a witness, you have to give the fact that they are a cop some value. That value isn’t significant enough to destroy any reasonable doubt, so you can’t make a conviction on that alone. But you can’t say it’s irrelevant, and you can’t say it wouldn’t influence a person’s credibility in your mind.

I’d imagine that the ratio of good cops to bad cops is probably 80/20. So I don’t think I’m giving cops “unflinching respect.”

I agree with Bill about not wanting people with strong opinions. When I was undergoing questioning the prosecutor asked me a yes or no question, I preferred to give her a more articulate answer and I think it counted against me.

Also, after talking with a few other jurors I think they refused a few people who had children, because of the nature of the crimes.

I think you have to believe everyone, until evidence is presented the brings their credibility into question.

This to me sounds like a dangerous position to take. Like Bill K said, cops know the system and know how easily it can be manipulated into their favor. They are human beings. However, I’m not less likely to believe them either. I just think they need to prove themselves on an individual basis.

I agree with BillK’s points about people desiring power. I think that while its nice to think that most people become police officers because they truly want to protect people, I can’t imagine this is always the case. Also, the point that Eliza makes regarding “authority figure vs. peer” is true. Attorneys want to know if you are more likely to believe a police officer over someone else. Not me. I will decide who’s testimony I believe based on what evidence they present and what knowledge and expertise they have. Just by virtue of them being a police officer – that, to me, doesn’t grant them special status to be trusted cart blanche. As a skeptic in a jury room, I have to put aside my preconceived notions about authority.

Its an interesting point you bring up about eye-witness testimony. Studies of memory recall in the brain have actually shown that each time you recall a specific memory you are actually changing that memory just a little bit. So the next time you recall the memory it will be that slightly changed version.

When they ask that question though, I don’t think they’re really asking about expert vs. non-expert. (And I think this is a problem with the jury selection process.) I think it is more authority figure vs. peer. In a different sort of society, the question might be posed as, “Would you believe the testimony of a soldier over that of a civilian?” More abstractly — are you a follower or are you a rebel? I’m thinking more like American Revolution rebel, not so much the, um, punk rock teen angst sort.

I have only had my life seriously threatened twice in my lifetime and both times it has been by cops, the worst being when one brandished a gun when I was trying to stop him from beating up his girlfriend. So I’m afraid that I cannot share your unflinching respect for these people.

Back on topic – I would have to say that I absolutely would not accept the word of a cop over any other witness. Yes, they are trained to be more observant and more attentive to detail, but they are also trained how to lie without actually lying.