[lbo-talk] jury duty

[andie nachgeborenen]

Well, if elite opinion is represented by legislators
and big firm defense lawyers, there is a widespread
view is that state court juries are out of control,
but then so are state court (elected) judges. Hence
the Class Action Fairness Act, intended to get class
actions before more civil-defense friendly, impartial
(because not elected), and generally more
knowledgeable federal judges. I am actually not
opposed to this idea, the one piece of Bush II
sponsored legislation that I don't think is per se
dreadful. The fact is that from what I've seen,
elected state court judges are generally not qualified
to handle big class actions and are not impartial
because they are elected, often with a lot of money
froma the local plaintiffs' bar. I don't mind
plaintiffs winning, but the fact is that a lot of the
class action plaintiffs' bar does not go in for
settlements or relief that gives genuine relief to
plaintiffs, but does allow them to scarf up big
attorney's fees.  Also there's the tort reform
movement, which can be seen as anti-jury, even if it
is a fraud -- the number of "outrageous" tort verdicts
that occur is demonstrably tiny and insignificant in
the way business operates, and especially in the med
mal context tort recovery caps genuinely harm
plaintiffs. Federal juries are seen as OK, and from my
experience of them this is actually true.

--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:


> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> 
> >The bourgeoisie would
> >>  never go for a jury
> >>  >system if it were designing things today.
> >>
> >
> >The jury system was developed at a time when things
> >were a lot less democratic than they are now. . . .
> 
> Yup, but what is elite opinion about the jury
> system?
> 
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com