On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:37:58 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   The big problem I see in this case is that 12 persons *who have not
> been elected by the people* are representing the people. They may or may
> not truely represent the opinion of the majority, at random.
> 
>   Also, these 12 people usually have no education nor experience about
> how law, politics and criminology works. What is worse, the views and
> expectations of these people on these subjects may be colored, if not
> even twisted, by the media. Thus they might not be the best people to
> decide about critical issues related to these things.

This is why the process in the US includes voir dire (jury selection), 
rather than just grabbing 12 random people off the street and saying 
"you're it for this case".

Both the prosecution and the defense question the potential jurors, and 
both have to agree on the jurors selected.

It's not as "random" as you seem to think it is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message