I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
sense.

  Think about it, 12 people with no knowledge nor experience whatsoever
about law, forensic science, criminal psychology or any other field
relevant to judging crimes, who usually don't have any previous experience
about jury duties and whose only "knowledge" of the field comes from
idealized TV shows and movies, get to decide the fate of a suspect.

  Moreover, putting it bluntly, in average half of the jury will have
less than average IQ, is some cases even significantly low IQ. This may
affect negatively their capacity to judge something impartially and
rationally.

  Still moreover, depending on the case, average people will easily let
their emotions cloud their judgement (for example in cases of child
abuse, etc), something which experienced professionals could avoid.

  Average people may also make irrational choices in difficult cases.
For example, someone could rationalize, even if at a subconsious level,
that it's better for the society to put an innocent person in jail than
to let a rapist or murderer go free. Thus it's possible that in unclear
cases they might opt voting guilty "just in case".

  Some people could simply "go with the flow" because they really don't
care. If most of the others are voting guilty, they may well vote guilty
just to get out of there, without really thinking about it too much.

  Is this how you would like yourself to be judged? Or would you prefer
being judged by impartial trained and experienced professionals who
understand the law and science involved, who have been trained to judge
fairly and impartially and who don't let things like emotions cloud their
judgement?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message