Peer
A peer is deemed to be, "a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status." source
Then look at the following "guaranteed right of criminal defendants."
"jury of one's peers" n.
a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection may include no process which excludes those of a particular race or intentionally narrows the spectrum of possible jurors. It does not mean that women are to be tried by women, Asians by Asians, or African Americans by African Americans. source
So, how would you feel if you or a loved one, perhaps not too bright or able in some respect, was to go before a jury of their peers, which, by the rule of equal, would also have to be not too bright or able? Personally, in such a case I'd opt for a jury brighter and more able than myself; but, this would seemingly violate the guarantee.
This raises the question of how just is this guarantee? Wouldn't it be far fairer to have the best jurists possible: the brightest and best legally informed? Perhaps, even professional jurists?
To me, the concept of "jury by one's peers" is seriously flawed, and has only stuck around because it sounds good rather than insuring any kind of best justice.
So, should we, keep "a jury of one's peers"? Fix it? Or come up with some other judicial solution?
I would want a jury of my peers, but unfortunately I would never get one. I would never want a religious person on my jury, for I am an atheist for a reason - I do not think that adults should adhere to magical thinking. As a matter of fact, I find it dangerous to have somebody deciding my fate who also believes in an invisible man in the sky creating us instead of what the evidence shows, since my case would be based upon the evidence.
Moreover, I also am intelligent (objectively) with an IQ well above 140. I doubt anybody on my jury would touch that due to the law of averages. I am not saying that is necessary to be my peer, but I would certainly hope that the jurors would be of above average intelligence at least since most lawyers are, and therefore my jurors would need to be to understand the lawyers case and my testimony.
Doubt is not the end, but only the beginning of pursuit.
Bio-logical I find it highly unlikely that your IQ is even within reach of the 140 mark let alone "well above [it]". Your claim seems to be ludicrous. I have met many people(University Professors many of which have IQ's under 140) who have much better grammar than you. I am well aware that grammar does not directly correspond with intelligence; however, judging by your diction, it appears that you use big words to hide your grammatical deficiencies.
I have shown above how you and I disagree about your intelligence. So who could truly be suitable to chose a jury of peers for you. They would obviously have a different view of you than you have of yourself. You might then suggest that you choose the jury. However, this would obviously never be allowed since you would be able to choose a jury that would be more sympathetic towards you.
Furthermore, restricting the religion of the jury is simply illogical. What if the judge, lawyer, or anyone else shares a different religious view than you. You would then be forcing the jury to share the same view as you. In doing so, you would be improving your chance of a good verdict causing an unfair trial.
The goal of the judicial system is to maintain social norms, and punish behaviors that deviate to far away from this norm. If the accused is to far from this norm then his peers (by the above definition) would also be far from it. If we were to choose peers using that definition, the judicial system would be completely ineffective. I believe the choice of wording "jury of one's peers" is just a euphemism for a jury consisting of the average members of society. This is their way of conforming the judicial system to the social norms. Their is no other fair way to judge someone. The ruling must be about fairness to everyone involved, not just one side of the equation.
Ex-intellect wrote:Bio-logical I find it highly unlikely that your IQ is even within reach of the 140 mark let alone "well above [it]". Your claim seems to be ludicrous. I have met many people(University Professors many of which have IQ's under 140) who have much better grammar than you. I am well aware that grammar does not directly correspond with intelligence; however, judging by your diction, it appears that you use big words to hide your grammatical deficiencies.
I have shown above how you and I disagree about your intelligence. So who could truly be suitable to chose a jury of peers for you. They would obviously have a different view of you than you have of yourself. You might then suggest that you choose the jury. However, this would obviously never be allowed since you would be able to choose a jury that would be more sympathetic towards you.
Furthermore, restricting the religion of the jury is simply illogical. What if the judge, lawyer, or anyone else shares a different religious view than you. You would then be forcing the jury to share the same view as you. In doing so, you would be improving your chance of a good verdict causing an unfair trial.
The goal of the judicial system is to maintain social norms, and punish behaviors that deviate to far away from this norm. If the accused is to far from this norm then his peers (by the above definition) would also be far from it. If we were to choose peers using that definition, the judicial system would be completely ineffective. I believe the choice of wording "jury of one's peers" is just a euphemism for a jury consisting of the average members of society. This is their way of conforming the judicial system to the social norms. Their is no other fair way to judge someone. The ruling must be about fairness to everyone involved, not just one side of the equation.
Believe what you will about my intelligence, it doesn't matter really. As far as a jury of my peers goes I am not as concerned about the intelligence of the jury, more so the rationality. I would not want to have a group of people who can consistently choose to believe something that is obviously contradictory to the evidence... which means that they might do the same with my verdict. This seems not only a justified concern, but something that more people should consider during jury selection.
A quick note on intelligence:
I am not a grammar expert, nor am I a college professor. I have a Bachelor's degree in Biology from a 2nd tier state school. My grades were not good enough to get into better schools. This is all irrelevant to intelligence. The IQ is a measure of rate of learning, grades and achievement are a measure of work ethic. I got a 32 on the ACT hung over with no preperation. My IQ was tested at 160 when I was in second grade, I was identified at one of the top 1% of the top 1% of those in my hometown tested. I was a part of a focus group in the creation of a charter school, which opened after I was too old for it. Among that group were 3 children (my peers) that went into ivy league schools with full ride scholarships. Does intelligence equate to success... no. I just learn fast - remarkably fast. That is all that intelligence means.
I also would like to go on record to welcome you to DC and thank you for choosing to insult my intelligence with your first post. May we have a long and fruitful relationship.
Doubt is not the end, but only the beginning of pursuit.
I don't see how one could determine the intelligence of someone via a couple of posts on a message board. My IQ is very high too but there's no way for that to be shown on here other than if we were given some sort of learning exercise for which we would be tested. Using grammar as a barometer? Naa, that won't work. I was pretty poor at English during my school days so everyone ignore mine Rational arguments may give some indication but that is a very specific type of thinking whereas IQ tests encapsulate a spectrum.
On the jury of one's peers thing, I'd hope that they try to find the most intellectually strong people as possible, regardless of those being tried. A, pardon the unPC statements, stupid person has just the same right to a rational jury as anyone else.
The problem I see with religion in this process is that many lay people see religion as a moral law giver. If you see the world that way, you are more likely to have a rigid "black and white" view of reality...and any rational person knows the real world ain't like that.
Bio-logical wrote:Moreover, I also am intelligent (objectively) with an IQ well above 140. I doubt anybody on my jury would touch that due to the law of averages. I am not saying that is necessary to be my peer, but I would certainly hope that the jurors would be of above average intelligence at least since most lawyers are, and therefore my jurors would need to be to understand the lawyers case and my testimony.
Of course by the definition in the initial post, they would have to have IQ s of above 140, but this does not mean that it would happen. If I do ever find myself in court, I would hope that every member has as much intelligence as possible. Intelligent people are less likely to make assumptions about you based upon information they can induce.
For example I sometimes watch shows on TV about real crimes which occurred and the process of evidence gathering. During the show, like most normal people I would expect, I come to form my own opinions based upon that evidence. When I think more about the situation more than less, though, I can in a way simulate the effects of if I had lesser intellect. I do not think outside of the box, though; my box just gets wider, out of tunnel vision. I begin to think about the effect of the show on my personal opinions outside of the show, and what the producers were trying to say. Maybe they were being biased on purpose. The point, though, is that a greater intellect gives one more information to draw from, so fewer assumptions need to be made.
As for judging IQ from grammar, Ex-intellect, you have cast a shadow upon your own by presenting your hypocrisy. Instead of criticizing others' grammar, you should copy-and-paste into Microsoft Word and hit F7 for a spelling and grammar check of your own.
Anyways, what better place to find someone with a high IQ on the internet than on a debate forum? A place we can sport our intellectual muscle!
Well the jury selection process creates alot of problems, like the trial of Conrad Black; they went through an insane number of jurors because the prosectution wanted smart people who'd understand the white collar crimes and the defence wanted uninformed ingorant people.
You left out the eight other definitions of peer that were on that page...
Also I take offence to the insinuation that just because a person is religious, that makes them not rational, or logical.
I am an ecclectic pagan, but I'm also a science major.
In order to be the best juror you can be you need to have: Logic, reason, common sense, intuition, street smarts, and you need to be clever, smart, devious, intelligent, wise, sand cunning... but you can only reasonably expect a juror to be maybe two, or three of those things at best.
Me, I'm clever, devious, and intuitive. I also have some skill with logic, and rationality, but not nearly as much as the aforementioned attributes.
I would like to claim to be wise, but I am only 19, and as such my wisdom is limited, and has yet to properly set, and gain character.
Personally I wouldn't like to have you in my jury, as you would probably think of me as a loony, idiotic, cloud cuckoolander.
I like to believe that everyone has something to add, some sort of special ability, or attribute that would be useful to a jury.
Logic dictates that one is either wrong, or right... that there is only black, and white.
Wisdom dictates that everything is a shade of grey.
The others each have their own effect on how a person perceives things, and thus how they would interpret evidence, and testimony in a courtroom.
Some people are better at using their head, others find that matters of the heart are more their thing, and yet others find that most problems can be resolved using their gut feeling, and all of those are things that would be useful in determining guilt, or innocence.
I believe in magic, luck, spirits, ghosts, and for a period of time I was sure that werewolves existed, but I also believe in evolution, the big bang, the M theory, parallel universes, the infinite universe, and a lot of other scientific theories, at least until they are disproved, or something that makes more sense comes along.
The only reason I have a religion at all, is because I saw the divine with my own eyes.
I used to be an atheist, but a silver wolf came to me, and taught me how to live my life with love in my heart, and fire in my soul!
If I disregarded things that are painfully obvious just because it didn't meet my expectations, the I would be a terrible juror...
If irrefutable evidence came to light that the cute girl was the one who stabbed a victim, instead of the hulking, shifty eyed guy, with lots of tattoos, I know who I would point my finger at.
Bio-logical wrote:
Moreover, I also am intelligent (objectively) with an IQ well above 140. I doubt anybody on my jury would touch that due to the law of averages. I am not saying that is necessary to be my peer, but I would certainly hope that the jurors would be of above average intelligence at least since most lawyers are, and therefore my jurors would need to be to understand the lawyers case and my testimony.
Guess I wouldn't qualify. I'm only slightly above 140 and a theist at that.
Personally, I would only want a jury of my peers if I were innocent. If I were guilty, I would prefer people who are more easily manipulated.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein
The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis
Rational arguments may give some indication but that is a very specific type of thinking whereas IQ tests encapsulate a spectrum. 
