[lugsoul]

And, when you say his "peers", since your post attempted to elaborate by using examples (rapist tried by rapists, etc.), are you, in plain English, saying that the jurors were terrorists?

The absolute idiots alternative does not support your explanation about constitutional interpretation or the alleged shift - which, btw, is an absolute crock as there has never been any decision holding that jurors must have similar avocations or criminal experiences as the accused - so are you calling - in plain English - the jurors 'terrorists'?

[F.J. Mitchell]

I am saying those jurors by their decision are enablers of terrorism.

If a jury of one's peers doesn't signify a jury of like minded individuals, what the heck does it signify?

The Constitution plainly calls for, "an impartial jury."

[El Gato]

there has never been any decision holding that jurors must have similar avocations or criminal experiences as the accused

No, but there have been countless rulings allowing jury tailoring, that is throwing out jurors thought likely to convict, or likely to acquit on the prosecution side. Impartial does not mean totally uniformed.

Go read the jury questionnaire in the Moussaoui case and see if you don't think many of the questions are designed to allow just such tailoring. Jurors can be challenged for cause, if one side or the other can convince the judge they would not be "impartial", but somehow the practice has become that they, the lawyers, can have jurors "de selected" for no stated reason at all. That, and allowing questionnaires such as the one issued in this case, to be given to the jurors. Under today's procedures, small towns would never have been able to try cases, because virtually everyone in town would know one or more of the principals in the case, and would have some pre-knowledge of the case.

Another egregious practice is not allowing jurors to apply their professional or particular expertise to arguments in the jury room. Thus a PhD physicist, or just any physics major or engineering major, could not use their expert knowledge to argue that the explanation of one side or the other's explanation of events would require a violation of the known laws of physics, (conservation of mass/energy, conservation of momentum, etc). He couldn't even point out where an "expert" witness was wrong about something like that. That's not justice, it's injustice disguised under the forms of law.