Is the justice system just?

The immediate question that arises with me regarding the justice system is: WHY IS THERE EVER NEED FOR A "JURY OF PEERS"?? People's situations are why is the justice system set up such that it seems to treat individual legal situations as if people are playing a casino slot machine?  This "JURY OF PEERS" craziness is RIDICULOUS AT BEST!

Take the George Zimmerman trial for instance: Whose PEERS were the jurors in this trial? What makes a person YOUR PEER?  I looked up PEER in the dictionary, and here's what I found:

PEER: one that is of equal standing with another : equal; especially: one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status

Now that struck me as VERY INTERESTING with respect to the Trayvon Martin case. My first thought is: IS IT MANDATORY THAT THERE'S A JURY? Thought #2: Does the VICTIM have any JUROR representation...or is the PEER makeup of the jury simply relative to the DEFENDANT?

Trayvon Martin had NO PEER REPRESENTATION...maybe that's because "THE SYSTEM" is set up such that ONLY THE DEFENDANT HAS PEER REPRESENTATION...but WHY? Isn't it, or shouldn't it be, equally as important that VICTIMS have equal representation?

Trayvon was Black and 17, as opposed to George Zimmerman, who is a "White Hispanic". Interestingly, the jury in his case was White and Hispanic. Isn't that within itself a situation destined for BIAS at its best???? You have a jury representative of the exact nationality makeup of the defendant...while there is NO BALANCE WHATSOEVER in terms of there being ANYONE ON THE JURY WHO COULD RELATE TO TRAYVON. Isn't that an important have a JUROR that could relate to a Rachel Jeantel or anyone Black involved with the Trial? One of the jurors in this case has come forward to say that she couldn't understand much of anything Jeantel that's FAIR AND JUST?

My final observation / question is:  WHY IS THERE EVER A NEED FOR A JURY TO BEGIN WITH, RELATIVE TO ANY CRIME? Doesn't THE JUDGE aspire to take on the role of JUDGE because they like what they do and have gone to school and invested THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS just be able to sit on the bench and JUDGE!!!!!????

Why couldn't THE JUDGE have been the SOLE JURY? What's with this PEER STUFF? Judges are equipped to understand DEFENSE TACTICS such that attorneys can trip witnesses up and make them say things that would sound one way to a ROOKIE JUROR, as opposed to a judge being able to see right through any PSYCHOLOGICAL TRICKERY. It just doesn't make sense.

The Justice SYSTEM should be set up such that it's CONSISTENT to the extent that one group of five White women and one Hispanic woman CANNOT come to one conclusion, while a totally different jury of PERSONALITIES, GENDERS, RACES, etc. come up with a completely different verdict.


I don't think it's fair that five White women and one Hispanic woman are chosen (in a similar fashion to "shooting craps") and it's ESTABLISHED that WHATEVER THEY SAY IS TRUTH...and that gets to STICK!  How is it just assumed that THEIR DECISION IS REPRESENTATIVE OF HOW I MAY HAVE SEEN THINGS...OR A DIFFERENT SET OF THE SAME MAKE UP OF JURORS WOULD HAVE SEEN THINGS?

I understand that you can't subpoena EVERYONE ON EARTH to sit in on a case as a juror...and to that I pose the APPROPRIATE question: Why do we need jurors in the first place when we have JUDGES?