|
 |
scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
> The problem is that for some crimes there are very few specialists available
> who know enough about the subject to give a useful opinion.
It's still better to have people who have years of education and
experience on criminology and forensic science in general than random
people who have no such things at all.
> 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).
By that logic judges should be random people without any education or
experience on the field as well.
> > 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.
Don't be ridiculous. A random mob of people is the most susceptible
group of people "wanting to find a guilty person", especially if the crime
raises strong feelings.
When lynch mobs start taking the law on their own hands, seldom good
things happen.
> 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.
I was just making an example (even if related to the subject in question).
I was not saying that the police should be the jury and judge.
The police is experienced in handling criminals and getting them to
justice. In the same way there are people who are experienced in judging
people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
