Warp wrote:
 >   I thought the Constitution (and the comissions created to impose it)
 > exists precisely to stop law-makers (and, in this case, judges) from
 > creating unfair laws.

It depends on your definition of "unfair". Slavery was legal. 
Segregation was legal. It's still legal to irrationally discriminate 
against gay people in most places and for most reasons.

When the community values change faster than the law, juries are 
helpful. When the law failed to take into account the specifics of some 
particular case, juries are helpful (because they can vote to free the 
accused even if the law says he should go to jail).

 >   Anyways, why should 12 people who have not been elected by the 
community
 > be representing the wishes of the community with regard to law? Isn't 
that
 > the task of elected representatives?

So are you going to elect the hypothetical experts who would be serving 
on your hypothetical juries? All of a sudden, your "impartiality" goes 
out the window, because people running for election would be pandering 
to the values of the most vocal, just like any other politician. Are 
they going to be appointed by elected representatives? All of a sudden, 
impartiality goes out the door as they'll be chosen for their partiality 
to the appointer's values.

-- 
   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