Warp wrote:
>   It would be nice to know if the result would have been different if the
> jury consisted of trained and experienced professionals (of law, criminology
> and forensic science) instead of random people.

It's not just about law, tho. Indeed, the jury isn't supposed to decide 
what the law should be, although it's inherent in the mechanism that 
they do.

If someone winds up with illegal stuff on their computer, are you going 
to have on hand an expert on computer hacking? An expert on tax law? And 
expert on genetics? Doctors? Pilots? Plumbers? Every case needs 
different experts, and the prosecutors can present those experts to the 
jury.

You seem to be implying that you *should* have people with inherent bias 
working on the cases. If it's a plumbing problem, you're going to have 
some plumbing experts on hand, and they're going to have preconceived 
ideas about how *they* would have handled the plumbing problem. Plus, 
they won't be doing any plumbing if they're being full-time jurists.

The state already brings to bear experts on law, criminology, and 
forensic science. Those are all working for the prosecutor. If at any 
point, those experts believe the suspect didn't commit the crime, they 
should stop prosecuting the suspect unless and until the evidence 
implying his guilt surfaces. One part of the jury's job is to decide 
whether those experts really *are* unbiased and truthful and expert. One 
part of the jury's job is to acquit if the experts didn't do the job 
right in spite of being experts.

If, after all is said and done, you are unable to explain why a person 
should go to jail to a normal person, then my opinion is that person 
shouldn't be going to jail.

-- 
   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