POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Why we have juries : Re: Why we have juries Server Time
4 Sep 2024 21:25:02 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Why we have juries  
From: m1j
Date: 8 Feb 2010 15:25:00
Message: <web.4b7071aba1d5947bbbf14d160@news.povray.org>
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> andrel wrote:
> > The Netherlands is no less complicated, yet we have been able to do it
> > for about 200 years. Basically since Napoleon.
>
> We never had a dictator to set that stuff up for us, yes. :-)
>
> > A very American remark. ;)
>
> Yes, very much. We have a long history of not trusting our government. Our
> revolution is still young enough to be alive and well, especially given that
> the founders of the country didn't trust the very government they were
> setting up.  I think many here look at individual conveniences (such as only
> having one place where you need to change your address) as much less
> important than the slim likelihood that something disastrous (such as
> rounding up all the <ethnic>s) will happen. (Note: I'm not saying this is
> right, logical, reasonable, etc. I'm just saying how it is. :-)
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
>    Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
>    I get "focus follows gaze"?

I think a better way of thinking is that in these United States we have a strong
individualism. Each state is to some extent sovereign and separate. There are
strong divisions between each government entity. The fed cannot interfere with
state activity unless it violates something to do with the federal constitution.
In fact each state has its own constitution. Each state sets its own taxes. And
each state sets its own law about jury duty and entrapment. In Oklahoma my
trailers do not need tags but just 30 miles south of me in Texas they have to
tag their trailers. Most of the southwest states allow guns without the need for
permits but in the northeast that is unheard of. Most people outside of the US
and even some inside forget this is a collection of states not a single state.
On entrapment; if an individual can be talked into or pressured to commit a
crime by another person who is not police it will still be prosecuted as a
crime. So why would that change if it was now a police officer that did the
pressuring? This is just another twist on the entrapment discussion.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.