 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] tag povrayorg> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
It's not just about law, tho. Indeed, the jury isn't supposed to decide
what the law should be, although it's inherent in the mechanism that
they do.
If someone winds up with illegal stuff on their computer, are you going
to have on hand an expert on computer hacking? An expert on tax law? And
expert on genetics? Doctors? Pilots? Plumbers? Every case needs
different experts, and the prosecutors can present those experts to the
jury.
You seem to be implying that you *should* have people with inherent bias
working on the cases. If it's a plumbing problem, you're going to have
some plumbing experts on hand, and they're going to have preconceived
ideas about how *they* would have handled the plumbing problem. Plus,
they won't be doing any plumbing if they're being full-time jurists.
The state already brings to bear experts on law, criminology, and
forensic science. Those are all working for the prosecutor. If at any
point, those experts believe the suspect didn't commit the crime, they
should stop prosecuting the suspect unless and until the evidence
implying his guilt surfaces. One part of the jury's job is to decide
whether those experts really *are* unbiased and truthful and expert. One
part of the jury's job is to acquit if the experts didn't do the job
right in spite of being experts.
If, after all is said and done, you are unable to explain why a person
should go to jail to a normal person, then my opinion is that person
shouldn't be going to jail.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp 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?
This is a different situation. There's an urgency, a risk of escalating
danger, and a possible initiation of violence.
A better comparison would be whether you'd more likely see a movie the
educated critics say is good and everyone else says is bad or vice versa.
--
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 wrote:
> 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?
Politician of country X: "I think it's charming how your system is based
on the will of the populace rather than a strict meritocracy."
Politician of country Y: "Yes, it's wonderful, isn't it? Oh, wait..."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
