 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:43:24 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> Whose side are you on? Don't give Warp ideas :)
>
>While I understand you're kidding,
That's true ;)
>I'm not taking sides. I'm discussing
>the ideas that Warp presented. I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.
I won't give those ideas the complement of rational argument.
>(I'm not convinced, but I'm willing to be. :-)
:-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Having sat on a jury, I can say that your impressions are not in line
with my experience.
In the deliberations I participated in, emotion was checked at the door
(it was a drug case), and the jury was provided with a large packet of
information about the laws pertaining to the case provided by both sides
of the case.
The process of voir dire was quite interesting as well - the process is
designed to eliminate those who may get emotional about the case (as was
the case in a federal case my wife was called to serve for - the case was
very close to a situation her ex-husband's family had been through, and
it was quite traumatic - she was excused as a result after a one-on-one
discussion with the judge).
The drug case I participated in was very interesting from several points
of view. There was information in the packet that indicated that the
defendant may not be guilty of one of the charges he was accused of. The
initial vote in the jury room was unanimous on one count, and all but one
(I was the one) voted in favor of a conviction on the second count. This
led to discussion, as it should, but not coercive discussion. I
explained my point of view based on the materials, and the others
explained their point of view also based on the materials we'd been
provided. In the end, I agreed with them, but I went and talked to the
judge after the case was over about it, and he explained a little more of
the process (that the jury doesn't see) and how those materials are put
together.
The packet that's put together is assembled by both the prosecution and
the defense, and includes anything either side feels helps their case -
case histories, cited law, etc. The jury can ask any question they want
about the materials they have or about the law - and most juries do spend
a fair bit of time understanding the intent behind the law they are
applying against the facts they've been presented.
The idea in the US court system (not sure about other countries, but I
suspect it's similar) is that the jury decides the facts of the case -
they judge the character of the witnesses called. They then use those
determined facts to identify what it is that the defendant is guilty of
(if anything).
Is it perfect in all cases? Absolutely not. But at the same time,
putting the power solely in the hands of the government is a supremely
bad idea.
All in all, I'd have to say it's a good system, certainly the best system
we have. I've had the opportunity to talk to judges, lawyers, cops, and
convicted felons about the system and the ones I've spoken to all have
said that they think it's a good system. Yes, even the felon said that,
and he's been convicted twice.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:47:36 -0400, Halbert wrote:
> I could add to it that most people serving on a jury don't even want to
> be there.
In my opinion, that's their loss. I found the process to be quite
enjoyable, and I learned a lot from it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
