Two views on the importance of the Jury

From Tort Deform, and article on how the real issue behind tort reform:

The debate about tort reform is largely cast in terms of corporations versus trial lawyers, so it fails to capture what is really at issue: Are citizens in a democracy entitled to make decisions, or must they defer to elites at every turn?

. . .

We continue to value the jury in the criminal context, but we belittle it in the civil context.

In contrast, there is this suggestion for drastic reform of med mal suits, from doctor in the pacific Northwest, via Point of Law:

 Judges with training in healthcare law/liability would preside and juries would consist of a mix of doctors and consumer advocates with special training. Patients who thought they had been injured could apply to the courts, discovery & testimony would be gathered as they are today, and the jury would issue a finding of fact. Verdicts might be: no injury; injury due to error; injury due to negligence; injury due to gross negligence. The courts would have the authority and duty to refer cases of negligence to the license boards for review. A summary of the findings of every case would be made public (with details redacted for privacy) to allow the medical industry to learn from the cumulative experience of the courts. And — critically — cases which had been previously decided could be used as precedent to guide future care as well as future cases.

I respect the doctor in question for saying a few things, his concern is that defendants who received shoddy care are sometimes left with nothing, and he suggests a level of transparency and openness.  But his willingness to abandon the type of legal system that we claim is the best defender of society is a little chilling.  The inclusion of a “jury” of experts is a tacit validation of the centrality of the jury to the American legal system, but the centrality is two fold: it is both a panel of citizens and citizens of every stripe and kind.  It is certainly reasonable to state that the methods of jury selection don’t encourage that diversity, but that is not a endorsement for replacing one kind of limited jury pool with another.

Posted in Law