Warp wrote:
>   I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
> jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
> sense.

Part of it was to allow the "common people" to have a say in which laws 
were actually enforced. In other words, a large portion of it (in the US 
at least) was set up to prevent the government from passing unfair laws 
that most people disagree with and then enforcing them. If you have to 
get twelve people to not only agree that you did it but to agree that 
what you did is something you should go to jail for, it would be more 
difficult to pass obviously unpopular laws.

>   Average people may also make irrational choices in difficult cases.
> For example, someone could rationalize, even if at a subconsious level,
> that it's better for the society to put an innocent person in jail than
> to let a rapist or murderer go free. Thus it's possible that in unclear
> cases they might opt voting guilty "just in case".

This of course does happen on occasion, but that's why you need a 
unanimous jury to convict someone.

>   Some people could simply "go with the flow" because they really don't
> care. If most of the others are voting guilty, they may well vote guilty
> just to get out of there, without really thinking about it too much.

On the other hand, one stubborn person often holds up the whole process, 
too. Even when the guilt is pretty clearly straightforward. And while 
I'm sure what you describe happens, everyone is told very clearly not to 
do that. There's even a step where after the verdict comes back, the 
defense gets to ask each juror whether they, individually and 
personally, agree with the verdict.

>   Is this how you would like yourself to be judged? Or would you prefer
> being judged by impartial trained and experienced professionals 

You've already been arrested, charged, and prosecuted by impartial, 
trained and experienced professionals. If that group can't sufficiently 
and convincingly explain to normal average people what you've done 
wrong, you probably shouldn't be spending time in jail. What makes you 
think that a "professional" would be any more impartial?

Now, maybe professional jurors would make sense. But who is going to 
"train" the jurors? The law enforcement system? The courts? I.e., the 
very government that then hires them to decide whether the government's 
actions are appropriate?

> understand the law and science involved, who have been trained to judge
> fairly and impartially and who don't let things like emotions cloud their
> judgement?

The problem is in those last bits, sadly.

And, of course, in almost every case you can get exactly this result, 
simply by asking for a trial without a jury. Then the judge makes the 
decision.

And if the jury convicts you without sufficient evidence (which is very 
difficult to prove, incidentally, but does win on appeal on occasion), 
or the "trained professionals" do something wrong (like the judge 
allowing evidence that shouldn't have been presented), you can get a new 
trial also.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message