Originally Posted by
GUWonder
Yes, trial by jury of one's peers should be a right afforded to all even in situations of speeding tickets or jaywalking. People may waive a jury trial, but it should be an option.
While we're at it, let's get juries involved in any civil issue as well regardless of size, like small claims matters. What better way to decide if a landlord should be able to keep a $200 security deposit than with 12 impartial jurors that carefully deliberate the facts of each and every case?
Oh! Parking tickets, too! Why, just the other day I got a $35 parking ticket. I didn't deserve it -- the meter malfunctioned. I am pleased to know that I can summon 12 people to decide whether I really owe the city $35, especially when I know the cost of summoning those 12 people will be far greater than that $35.
</sarcasm>
Jury trials are much more complicated than "Hey, let's get 12 people in a room to vote guilty or not guilty." Jurors have to be properly selected, determined to be impartial, subjected to peremptory challenges, educated on the law via instructions from the judge, and so on. Traffic courts, small claims courts, and the like often hear 20+ cases in a single 3 hour session.
Speeding tickets aren't criminal matters. Neither are parking tickets. Neither are security deposits. They don't meet the standard afforded by the 6th Amendment. They *certainly* don't justify the volume of resources as one would get if facing incarceration and a criminal record.