 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:59:56 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> 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.)
Crime isn't what's being decided by the jury. What's being decided by
the jury is which facts presented are the actual facts of the case - that
determination is made by normal people in the US who are called up for
jury duty.
Out of curiosity, have you ever served on a jury? In Finland (going from
memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong), what sort of criminal justice
(and civil justice, for that matter) system is used?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
How come? The "wrong" government voted in by normal people (rather than
experts who are advising otherwise) can cause problems orders of magnitude
bigger than some wrong decision in a court.
> Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> random people. *That* would be absurd.
That's not very absurd at all, unless the elections were really close,
asking 12 totally random people would probably give the same result as
asking the whole population. Raise that number to just 30 or 50 people and
you'd almost certainly get the same result every time. If you're good at
stats you can work out the figures.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
It is repeatedly made *very* clear to the jury that they must only give a
guilty verdict if they are sure beyond all doubt that you are guilty of the
crime. They know this too anyway, not many people would like the feeling of
guilt and responsibility for the rest of their life of having put a person
in jail for a crime they might not have committed.
But then I guess if you still feel uncomfortable with that system, either a)
don't get into a situation where you end up in court (might not involve
breaking the law) or b) move to a country where trial by jury is not
mandatory.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > 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.
> Don't presume to tell me what I know and what I don't, please.
So you really didn't understand what I meant?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of 12
> > random people. *That* would be absurd.
> That's not very absurd at all, unless the elections were really close,
> asking 12 totally random people would probably give the same result as
> asking the whole population. Raise that number to just 30 or 50 people and
> you'd almost certainly get the same result every time. If you're good at
> stats you can work out the figures.
Why does it seem so damn hard to understand what I am talking about?
When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people. I don't mean 100 million people
vote one way and 100000012 people vote the other way.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> > What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
> > judge?
> A lone judge is the alternative.
Thus not what I was talking about.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people.
That's what I meant too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Out of curiosity, have you ever served on a jury?
Nope. There's no such thing here.
> In Finland (going from
> memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong), what sort of criminal justice
> (and civil justice, for that matter) system is used?
If I'm not completely msitaken, usually a judge and a panel of three
so-called lay judges. In more difficult cases the panel may be expanded
with one or two experts.
The lay judges are elected by the city council (or something like that,
I'm not completely sure) in 4-year terms.
In very trivial cases simpler setups may be used.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> > When I say 12 people, I mean 12 people.
> That's what I meant too.
In which country is the total amount of votes 12?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> That's what I meant too.
>
> In which country is the total amount of votes 12?
Dunno, you suggested it!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
