On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 07:06:38 -0400, 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.

Those people *are* involved, Warp.  They're the expert witnesses, the 
prosecution and defense attorneys, and the judge.  They're just not the 
*only* people involved.

In my work in IT, it often made sense when I had a problem to try to 
explain it to my wife.  She's not an expert in IT (by any stretch), but I 
found that trying to explain things to her made them clearer for me.  
Having "John Q. Public" involved means that the prosecution and defense 
both have to really work on their arguments to explain them to the 
layperson.  Since a jury can ask any question they want about what's been 
presented or the law, anything that's not clear can be clarified.

And in exceptional cases where the jury comes to the wrong verdict (which 
does happen), if the judge doesn't feel that the jury's vote was 
appropriate (in either direction), the judge can set aside the verdict.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:01:39 +0200, Gilles Tran wrote:

> Note that the US is quite unique in that it allows jury trials for both
> civil and criminal cases, and in the latter case jury trials are
> (theoretically at least) possible even for lesser crimes.

Something I learned just recently is that in some venues (maybe not all), 
a defendant can even request a jury trial in small claims court.  New 
York County is one of those places.  I was very surprised to see that.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:26:30 -0400, 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.

Sure, and the Constitution has really reigned in GWB, hasn't it? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:37:58 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   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 why the process in the US includes voir dire (jury selection), 
rather than just grabbing 12 random people off the street and saying 
"you're it for this case".

Both the prosecution and the defense question the potential jurors, and 
both have to agree on the jurors selected.

It's not as "random" as you seem to think it is.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:

>   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> random people. *That* would be absurd.

There's every possibility that happened in the last two US presidential 
elections, and every possibility that will continue in this one.

Some believe that GWB became President not through the election, but 
through a court decision.  Both times.

This time around, there's a possibility that the candidate selected for 
the democratic party will be selected by the "superdelegates" in the DNC, 
rather than by the popular vote or the votes of the normal delgates.  It 
*could* happen that the candidate with a minority of the popular vote in 
the primaries (and a minority of the states' delegates) could be the 
democratic candidate.

And that person could well become the next POTUS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:05:20 -0400, Warp wrote:

> 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.

Well, as Darren said, in the US at least, you have that option.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:

> >   Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> > random people. *That* would be absurd.

> There's every possibility that happened in the last two US presidential 
> elections, and every possibility that will continue in this one.

  That's not what I meant, and you know it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
judge?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.

  I don't think crime is a matter of opinion. (At least not in most cases.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> does happen), if the judge doesn't feel that the jury's vote was 
> appropriate (in either direction), the judge can set aside the verdict.

I'm pretty sure the judge doesn't get to set aside an innocent verdict, 
in the US.

-- 
   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