>> Good luck finding one of them :-)
>
>  I don't see the problem.

The problem is that for some crimes there are very few specialists available 
who know enough about the subject to give a useful opinion.  If that is the 
case then those people should not also be the jury, because there is far too 
much risk that they are associated in some way with the person being tried 
(eg working for the same company, working for competing companies, had a 
brick through their window the night before, etc).

> Compare that question to:
>
>  When dealing with an ongoing crime, would you prefer it to be handled
> by trained and experienced police officers, or by a mob of random people?

What happens if the police officers are told by their boss what to say?  Or 
even if they get some "pressure" from above for not finding enough people 
guilty?  Choosing random people from the population who don't have to answer 
to anyone seems less susceptible to corruption.

Anyway, if you want trial by the police, then you may as well just get rid 
of the court procedure altogether, and the police can just have a meeting to 
decide what to do with each person.

Post a reply to this message