 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28 Apr 2008 11:05:20 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
>
> Well, then we just have to disagree on that.
Agreed!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> triple_r <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>> It's not
>> that I'm disagreeing with you, but it's also an idealization to assume a small
>> group of professionals is able to make just decisions.
>
> At least they can have the necessary education and experience, which
> random people don't have.
Education and experience in what? Law enforcement? We already have them.
Prosecutors and judges. The prosecutor can drop the case. The judge can
dismiss the case. You have to explain to a lawyer, a judge, *and* a jury
before people get convicted. No jury can falsely convict you of a crime
without the experts in law and criminology already falsely prosecuting
you for the crime.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:28:05 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>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.
Fuzzy thinking IMO.
>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.
Whose side are you on? Don't give Warp ideas :)
I think this is a bit too trivial. Can you really compare lose of
liberty (or worse) with going to a movie?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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.
It depends on your definition of "unfair". Slavery was legal.
Segregation was legal. It's still legal to irrationally discriminate
against gay people in most places and for most reasons.
When the community values change faster than the law, juries are
helpful. When the law failed to take into account the specifics of some
particular case, juries are helpful (because they can vote to free the
accused even if the law says he should go to jail).
> 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?
So are you going to elect the hypothetical experts who would be serving
on your hypothetical juries? All of a sudden, your "impartiality" goes
out the window, because people running for election would be pandering
to the values of the most vocal, just like any other politician. Are
they going to be appointed by elected representatives? All of a sudden,
impartiality goes out the door as they'll be chosen for their partiality
to the appointer's values.
--
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:
> Personally I would feel uncomfortable having random people
But you don't need to. You can opt (in the US at least) for a non-jury
trial. You have the right, but not obligation, to a jury trial.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> Whose side are you on? Don't give Warp ideas :)
While I understand you're kidding, I'm not taking sides. I'm discussing
the ideas that Warp presented. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.
(I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to be. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> 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.
>
> --
Like in the case of a military court? In the US armed forces, the accused
may have the option for "Non-judicial punishment" (i.e. a plea of guilty) or
a court-martial where the case is heard by a panel of officers who have
expertise in the subject matter. The panel then rules on the crime and the
court-martial passes a sentence.
--
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
