Extrinsic Proofs and Trial-by-Jury

Initially I had a difficult time wrapping my head around the concepts laid out in this chapter on extrinsic proofs. Perhaps it’s because we’ve been working so long on intrinsic proofs based on internal invention that I stopped considering the big picture. But it was absolutely a refreshing read to step out of the intrinsic box and remember there is a larger scope to constructing an argument.
A great deal of the focus seemed to be on potential biases a rhetor (or common individual) might have. “Ancient rhetoricians generally distrusted the testimony of ordinary persons,” said Crowley & Hawhee, “especially those who testified in legal cases.” (271) I hadn’t pegged the ancient rhetoricians to have that level of cynicism and mistrust for people, but I am certainly glad they had the foresight to consider such obstacles.
Aristotle’s method of determining juror value, for example, based on potential bias was absolutely brilliant and very ahead of its time. It also makes me wonder as to why similar methods are not put in place today. Yes, the attorneys have a set number of jurors they can dismiss based on both pre-agreed value judgments, their own judgments or for no stated reason at all, but that seems very open to interpretation of the individual attorney. Plus who hasn’t gotten a letter requesting your presence for jury duty and instantly been unhappy in going, especially if you’re selected? That alone could create a bias, which is extremely important to set aside as a juror, considering a great deal rides on their interpretations of situation and arguments.
The best solution to both these issues, in my mind, is to create a system quite like they have in (possibly, I’m not sure and I couldn’t find information online to confirm or dispute my thought) England. Such a system involves jurors not just on a case-by-case random sampling, but jurors are used on a career basis. Their entire function of employment would be to be jurors on criminal cases. These would be individuals who are hired simply because of their tendency to be impartial and unbiased. Such traits could be identified and quantified by the employer, who in this case would likely be the state.
These career jurors would be trained to identify strengths and weaknesses in argument while being certain to maintain the integrity of their role as jurors. Certainly they could come under pressure from outside sources, but that would be no different than the system currently in place, and career jurors would be far tougher to influence than the everyday man or woman. Like everything I seem to discuss in my blogs, it would take a drastic overhaul, but in my opinion it would lead to more organized, fair trials that would guarantee juror impartiality.
It was a substantial enough concern that ancients like Aristotle had to devise a system to work around such biases; why can’t we devise one to ensure their elimination?