CrimeTalk...a website for the Criminal Justice researcher, practitioner, student and other interested parties.

This website will try to provide, to the user, dialogue for discussion and links for further acquisition of data for research.

The links offered here allow access to over 1500 law enforcement agencies worldwide.

The newspaper links will also provide the user options for acquiring additional information.

No claims are made for the accuracy of any data provided by this website or any of the links provided.

Topics for discussion will be offered as well as selected topics suggested by users and visitors.

Feedback is requested to help improve the site and its offerings.
 
 

Joseph L Kibitlewski, Ph.D., has almost two decades of law enforcement experience in most major areas of law enforcement; from street cop to criminal investigator to top administrator of a police department.

He has also served as a consultant to the Department of Justice (DOJ) project training the entire civilian police force for the country of Haiti.

Concurrent with his position as consultant to the DOJ, Dr. Kibitlewski has been serving as a college professor since 1989, teaching most of the law enforcement courses offered by a comprehensive Criminal Justice program.

Dr. Kibitlewski also teaches at selected regional criminal justice centers on an ad hoc basis. He has appeared on television panel discussions in Atlanta , Georgia and has written articles for selected international publications.
 
 

1) Should the jury system be altered to reflect the growing complexity of the evidence offered at trial by experts ? In light of the growing use of scientific experts, is the time ripe to require that juries be knowledgeable enough to fully comprehend the evidence offered from the witness chair? We demand "experts" in the witness box..but "dummies" in the jury box. Does this do credit to our criminal justice system? Does it perhaps help to cast disdain and mistrust in our trial proceedings? Who benefits by the lack of knowledge on the part of the jury ?

We have seen recently in two celebrated trials, O.J. Simpson and Louise Woodard, how the jury can be confused by the plethora of complex scientific testimony.

Would it not be a credit to the task of serving the ends of "justice" by having selected individuals who can understand the testimony offered? At the inception of our country, great thought was given to providing the citizens with the best possible chance for a fair trial. But does deceit or confusion serve any justifiable end?

In 1789, testimony was much simpler. The modern technological wars have given way to a situation which can overwhelm the ordinary citizen. If the complex data offered to the jury box can be understood by those NOT educated in that field, why then do individuals spend years acquiring such precise knowledge?

The course of our legal history is replete with changes on how to protect the defendant; a fair trial should also perhaps encompass fairness to the society the laws are designed to protect as well.

Having said that is the time not ripe for a "professional" jury? One trained..tested..and paid to do a single purpose - deciding guilt or innocence based solely upon the evidence. In this day and age, it sounds almost as a novel idea !

Such a jury, or rather several groups of them, would be available from each state. If a change of venue was decided, then an outside jury might be brought in to hear the evidence and deliberate.

Today trials can last several months thus limiting those who might be able to serve. How many people can afford to take 9 months off from their jobs to sit upon a jury?

2) Should all attorneys speaking in open court also be placed under oath? What would be the reason NOT to require this? If information is presented to the judge/jury, shouldn't such information be forthcoming from a position of truth? Who should be permitted to lie or mislead at trial? How can truth and justice prevail if people cannot be held accountable for their remarks? Of course, what an attorney says in open court is NOT evidence, but its impact is readily recognized and jurors do not have the level of sophistication to keep that point uppermost in their minds as they deliberate.

Comments are requested from all users. If you are a practicing attorney, researcher or student, please identify which group you are from.