 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistech fr> wrote:
> In other words, jury trials are there to prevent judges to create law as it
> fits them.
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.
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?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Trial by jury goes to the very question that is at the heart of
> political science: Is the government primary over the people, or are
> the people primary over the government?
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 not to say that juries never err. They do, and often blatantly
> so, but in many cases where the jury acquits a guilty defendant or
> convicts an innocent one, it can be shown that the jury was led to this
> by systematic misconduct on the part of the officials of the court. A
> recent review of many dozens of American prisoners, convicted of murder,
> who were later exonerated by DNA evidence, shows a common paradigm where
> the prosecution relentlessly pursues the conviction of an early suspect,
> ignoring (if not hiding) exculpatory evidence along the way, and in some
> instances unknowingly allowing the actual culprit to testify against the
> defendant.
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> You don't really get the point about being tried by a jury of your
> peers, do you?
I, once again, would like to make the comparison: If there's a crime
in progress, would you prefer experienced trained police officers to
handle it, or a lynch mob of random people?
The lynch mob may consist of "my peers", but they do not have the proper
education, training nor experience to handle these things properly (ie. to
make sure that suspects are secured and innocent people protected).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> The lynch mob may consist of "my peers", but they do not have the proper
> education, training nor experience to handle these things properly (ie. to
> make sure that suspects are secured and innocent people protected).
An even more fundamental problem then in our system, is that "normal" people
with no training in law or politics get to vote on who runs the country (and
hence influence key decisions)! How absurd is that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28 Apr 2008 09:42:07 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> You don't really get the point about being tried by a jury of your
>> peers, do you?
>
> I, once again, would like to make the comparison: If there's a crime
>in progress, would you prefer experienced trained police officers to
>handle it, or a lynch mob of random people?
Two different things, Warp. Yes, I would prefer professional police at
the crime. But if I were to stand trial for a crime I would like to be
judged by people like me not professional jurists. Nor by a jury that
has been vetted for the correct opinions as is done in some countries.
Just a random selection from the local area seems quite fare in an
unfair world.
Have you ever been on a jury? I have and it was interesting.
> The lynch mob may consist of "my peers", but they do not have the proper
>education, training nor experience to handle these things properly (ie. to
>make sure that suspects are secured and innocent people protected).
That is why we have the police and we don't judge until after the
offence. Except for terrorism, then all bets are off.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:55:10 +0200, "scott" <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> The lynch mob may consist of "my peers", but they do not have the proper
>> education, training nor experience to handle these things properly (ie. to
>> make sure that suspects are secured and innocent people protected).
>
>An even more fundamental problem then in our system, is that "normal" people
>with no training in law or politics get to vote on who runs the country (and
>hence influence key decisions)! How absurd is that?
>
Ha! You have convinced me. I hereby surrender my right to vote. :)
LOL
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's still better to have people who have years of education and
> experience on criminology and forensic science in general than random
> people who have no such things at all.
That's what the evidentiary process is for. You get the appropriate
experts in to inform the jury how things work. And the judge supposedly
tells the jury how the law works.
> By that logic judges should be random people without any education or
> experience on the field as well.
No, because the judge's job in a jury trial is to decide on matters of
law. The jury's job is to decide on matters of fact. E.g., is the guy
describing the scene lying or not? Jury. Is the police man allowed to
present that evidence to the jury? Judge.
Different jobs, different people.
> The police is experienced in handling criminals and getting them to
> justice. In the same way there are people who are experienced in judging
> people.
Yes, and you can get one of those easily if you want.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > The lynch mob may consist of "my peers", but they do not have the proper
> > education, training nor experience to handle these things properly (ie. to
> > make sure that suspects are secured and innocent people protected).
> An even more fundamental problem then in our system, is that "normal" people
> with no training in law or politics get to vote on who runs the country (and
> hence influence key decisions)! How absurd is that?
Less absurd than only 12 people deciding the fate of a suspect.
Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
random people. *That* would be absurd.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> But if I were to stand trial for a crime I would like to be
> judged by people like me not professional jurists.
Well, then we just have to disagree on that.
Personally I would feel uncomfortable having random people who can eg.
have their judgement clouded by their emotions, and who might eg. convict
someone "just in case" (ie, better to convict an innocent than having a
criminal running free) judge me, if I know I am innocent.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> [... lots of stuff ...]
Wow. I think I'll save this one. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
