Mike the Elder wrote:
> Having served on a few juries here in the U.S., my experiences tend to confirm
> most of Warp's concerns as valid.  The problem with the alternative is that
> judges are either directly elected or appointed by elected officials who are
> voted into office with even less reasoning and objective scrutiny than one
> finds in a jury trial. 

Strangely those are not the only two options. In the netherlands the 
judges are appointed but not by elected officials. Although some judges 
may be member of a political party, it is considered very bad if that 
would show in one way or another in their judgments. If that would 
happen i think they would loose the job very soon, but I don't know of 
any case. Active judges should be and are above any political party 
struggles. I assume some or most Americans won't believe this could 
work, but it does. You might also assume that this opens up the door for 
corruption, but it doesn't. The judges and prosecutors are a group that 
is not in any way connected to the group that passes laws nor are they 
related to the industry. Trial by jury may have a useful place in a 
system where these groups are linked and judges and politicians both 
have to find money to campaign to be elected, in our system there is no 
place for it. (Which does not stop some politicians that don't 
understand the system to propose it every now and then as a cheap way to 
get votes)

> Suspicions that those in power are not acting with the
> interests of justice as their primary motivating force are often well founded.
> Panels of knowledgeable individuals seeking to act genuinely in the interests of
> justice would indeed be a vast improvement over the current system, but that's
> NOT what would happen were the right to a jury trial to be abolished. The U.S.
> is a fragmented society in which religious, ethnic, racial and class bigotry
> abound (middle-aged white male of above average income speaking). For all of
> its flaws, the jury system is a very necessary check against the unlimited
> exploitation of ordinary people by the privileged classes.
> 
In our system the judges appear to be on average slightly to the left 
(i.e thinking more about the lower classes than favoring companies and 
wealthier people) with respect to the general population. So there is 
some sort of natural balance, because the latter group can speak for 
themselves. I can see your point that only abolishing the jury, without 
a thorough reform of the whole system, might not be a good idea in the US.

Post a reply to this message