I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
sense.

  Think about it, 12 people with no knowledge nor experience whatsoever
about law, forensic science, criminal psychology or any other field
relevant to judging crimes, who usually don't have any previous experience
about jury duties and whose only "knowledge" of the field comes from
idealized TV shows and movies, get to decide the fate of a suspect.

  Moreover, putting it bluntly, in average half of the jury will have
less than average IQ, is some cases even significantly low IQ. This may
affect negatively their capacity to judge something impartially and
rationally.

  Still moreover, depending on the case, average people will easily let
their emotions cloud their judgement (for example in cases of child
abuse, etc), something which experienced professionals could avoid.

  Average people may also make irrational choices in difficult cases.
For example, someone could rationalize, even if at a subconsious level,
that it's better for the society to put an innocent person in jail than
to let a rapist or murderer go free. Thus it's possible that in unclear
cases they might opt voting guilty "just in case".

  Some people could simply "go with the flow" because they really don't
care. If most of the others are voting guilty, they may well vote guilty
just to get out of there, without really thinking about it too much.

  Is this how you would like yourself to be judged? Or would you prefer
being judged by impartial trained and experienced professionals who
understand the law and science involved, who have been trained to judge
fairly and impartially and who don't let things like emotions cloud their
judgement?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

You point is well taken. I could add to it that most people serving on a 
jury don't even want to be there. The real question would then be what is 
the proactical alternative? If we had professional jurors or a panel, how 
could we guard against corruption?

--
H²

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
> jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
> sense.

Part of it was to allow the "common people" to have a say in which laws 
were actually enforced. In other words, a large portion of it (in the US 
at least) was set up to prevent the government from passing unfair laws 
that most people disagree with and then enforcing them. If you have to 
get twelve people to not only agree that you did it but to agree that 
what you did is something you should go to jail for, it would be more 
difficult to pass obviously unpopular laws.

>   Average people may also make irrational choices in difficult cases.
> For example, someone could rationalize, even if at a subconsious level,
> that it's better for the society to put an innocent person in jail than
> to let a rapist or murderer go free. Thus it's possible that in unclear
> cases they might opt voting guilty "just in case".

This of course does happen on occasion, but that's why you need a 
unanimous jury to convict someone.

>   Some people could simply "go with the flow" because they really don't
> care. If most of the others are voting guilty, they may well vote guilty
> just to get out of there, without really thinking about it too much.

On the other hand, one stubborn person often holds up the whole process, 
too. Even when the guilt is pretty clearly straightforward. And while 
I'm sure what you describe happens, everyone is told very clearly not to 
do that. There's even a step where after the verdict comes back, the 
defense gets to ask each juror whether they, individually and 
personally, agree with the verdict.

>   Is this how you would like yourself to be judged? Or would you prefer
> being judged by impartial trained and experienced professionals 

You've already been arrested, charged, and prosecuted by impartial, 
trained and experienced professionals. If that group can't sufficiently 
and convincingly explain to normal average people what you've done 
wrong, you probably shouldn't be spending time in jail. What makes you 
think that a "professional" would be any more impartial?

Now, maybe professional jurors would make sense. But who is going to 
"train" the jurors? The law enforcement system? The courts? I.e., the 
very government that then hires them to decide whether the government's 
actions are appropriate?

> understand the law and science involved, who have been trained to judge
> fairly and impartially and who don't let things like emotions cloud their
> judgement?

The problem is in those last bits, sadly.

And, of course, in almost every case you can get exactly this result, 
simply by asking for a trial without a jury. Then the judge makes the 
decision.

And if the jury convicts you without sufficient evidence (which is very 
difficult to prove, incidentally, but does win on appeal on occasion), 
or the "trained professionals" do something wrong (like the judge 
allowing evidence that shouldn't have been presented), you can get a new 
trial also.

-- 
   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

Halbert <hal### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> If we had professional jurors or a panel, how 
> could we guard against corruption?

  How would professionals be more susceptible to corruption than random
people?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

It would be quite easy to know who to bribe if a jury was professional. 
Where in the typical system, there is seldom any oportunity for jury members 
to be threatened or bribed before there decision has been made.

--
H²

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Halbert <hal### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > If we had professional jurors or a panel, how
> > could we guard against corruption?
>
>   How would professionals be more susceptible to corruption than random
> people?
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp

Is it a question of numbers?  Would you feel better if more than twelve people
(in America) made up a jury?  If you do the math(*), about one in 46000 cases
has a jury with the majority of jurors in the lowest quartile of some
quality--IQ, for example.  But I don't suspect more jurors would make you feel
any better, because they still don't know much about the law.  So what about a
group of professionals?  The importance of checks and balances can't be
overstated.  The last few years of foreign relations in the US show that no
matter how distinguished the title--well, do I even need to finish?  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 a random
sample doesn't keep dipping into the same small pool.  Justice on average?

 - Ricky


(*) Been a while, but (1/4)^7 * (3/4)^5 + (1/4)^8 * (3/4)^4 + (1/4)^9 * (3/4)^3
+ ... ~= 1/46000

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   How would professionals be more susceptible to corruption than random
> people?

Do politicians lie more than average? Do police have a lower opinion of 
the honesty of people than average? Do police, for that matter, 
consistently drive at the speed limit, even in their personal automobiles?

Personally, I think they'd get corrupted interacting with the court on a 
regular basis, seeing so many people going through the court system who 
have done awful things, to the point where they see the judges and 
police as normal upstanding hard-working folks, and anyone arrested most 
likely guilty because otherwise the upstanding police wouldn't have 
arrested them. Not that someone would necessarily corrupt them (altho Mr 
Hawkins has a good point), but that it would just be a natural result of 
working inside the system without a clear goal (prosecution or defense) 
one way or another for extended periods of time.

My two cents.

-- 
   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

>  Is this how you would like yourself to be judged? Or would you prefer
> being judged by impartial trained and experienced professionals

Good luck finding one of them :-)

Post a reply to this message

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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  Is this how you would like yourself to be judged? Or would you prefer
> > being judged by impartial trained and experienced professionals

> Good luck finding one of them :-)

  I don't see the problem. Compare that question to:

  When dealing with an ongoing crime, would you prefer it to be handled
by trained and experienced police officers, or by a mob of random people?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Good luck finding one of them :-)
>
>  I don't see the problem.

The problem is that for some crimes there are very few specialists available 
who know enough about the subject to give a useful opinion.  If that is the 
case then those people should not also be the jury, because there is far too 
much risk that they are associated in some way with the person being tried 
(eg working for the same company, working for competing companies, had a 
brick through their window the night before, etc).

> Compare that question to:
>
>  When dealing with an ongoing crime, would you prefer it to be handled
> by trained and experienced police officers, or by a mob of random people?

What happens if the police officers are told by their boss what to say?  Or 
even if they get some "pressure" from above for not finding enough people 
guilty?  Choosing random people from the population who don't have to answer 
to anyone seems less susceptible to corruption.

Anyway, if you want trial by the police, then you may as well just get rid 
of the court procedure altogether, and the police can just have a meeting to 
decide what to do with each person.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> The problem is that for some crimes there are very few specialists available 
> who know enough about the subject to give a useful opinion.

  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.

>  If that is the 
> case then those people should not also be the jury, because there is far too 
> much risk that they are associated in some way with the person being tried 
> (eg working for the same company, working for competing companies, had a 
> brick through their window the night before, etc).

  By that logic judges should be random people without any education or
experience on the field as well.

> > Compare that question to:
> >
> >  When dealing with an ongoing crime, would you prefer it to be handled
> > by trained and experienced police officers, or by a mob of random people?

> What happens if the police officers are told by their boss what to say?  Or 
> even if they get some "pressure" from above for not finding enough people 
> guilty?  Choosing random people from the population who don't have to answer 
> to anyone seems less susceptible to corruption.

  Don't be ridiculous. A random mob of people is the most susceptible
group of people "wanting to find a guilty person", especially if the crime
raises strong feelings.

  When lynch mobs start taking the law on their own hands, seldom good
things happen.

> Anyway, if you want trial by the police, then you may as well just get rid 
> of the court procedure altogether, and the police can just have a meeting to 
> decide what to do with each person.

  I was just making an example (even if related to the subject in question).
I was not saying that the police should be the jury and judge.
  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4814f9d0@news.povray.org...
>  I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
> jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
> sense.

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. Common law 
countries are on the whole more favourable to jury trials than civil law 
countries, where they are usually limited to the most serious crimes.

Now, IANAL or a legal scientist, but it could be that the rationale for jury 
trials in common law countries emerged because in common law systems the law 
is by definition created by the judges, who have the authority to make 
precedents, so that a popular jury (the defendent's peers) is necessary as a 
counterbalance to that (potentially arbitrary) power: it's the principle of 
separation of powers between those who make the law and those who apply it. 
In other words, jury trials are there to prevent judges to create law as it 
fits them.

In civil law countries, the law is codified by the State (and in a 
democracy, the law is written by the People's representatives) and judges 
can only read/interpret the law. They cannot make it, so the separation of 
powers is built in the system. However, popular juries still exist in civil 
law countries, perhaps due to the practical fact that a Penal code doesn't 
provide the "internal conviction" (which doesn't depend on the law, but on 
facts) required for the final judgement in the most difficult cases. 
However, for the majority of offenses, civil law countries use bench trials, 
not jury trials.

Again, IANAL so I could be completely off base here.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   I have been thinking: In the US and a few other countries trials by
> jury are quite common. What I don't understand is how that makes any
> sense.

Trial by jury goes to the very question that is at the heart of 
political science:  Is the government primary over the people, or are 
the people primary over the government?  Does the government act by 
right, and the people by permission, or do the people act by right, and 
the government by permission?  Are the powers of government based on 
inherent rights of the government, or is governmental power merely the 
delegated exercise of the rights of the people in general?

The western democracies are based, at least in theory, on the principle 
that the people are primary and that the government is secondary. 
History has shown that the people who form the government are often not 
content with this secondary role, and will often seek to reverse it, 
making the government (and, in so doing, themselves) primary over the 
people.  This is generally accomplished through expansions of the powers 
of the government, by increasing the number of areas in which the 
government acts, and by increasing the control of the government in 
those areas where it acts.  It cannot be overstated that these 
expansions of the government's powers are always at the expense of the 
people, and the alleged benefits of these expansions never offset the 
total cost to the people; a bigger government is always a net loss to 
the people who are outside of government.

In a criminal case, the interests of the government and the interests of 
the people are not necessarily the same.  The people, in general, want 
dangerous people locked up or neutralized in some other manner, and for 
everyone else to be left alone.  The government, on the other hand, will 
tend to want those who disobey the government to be locked up (or 
worse), and to let the obedient go free.  Whenever there is a conflict 
between what the government wants and what the people want, it is always 
either the government wanting to punish a person who presents no threat 
to society, or to leave unpunished someone who is clearly dangerous to 
society.

Courts are all creatures of the government.  They are created by acts of 
government and are funded by appropriation from taxes collected by the 
government.  They are no exception to the tendency of government 
officials to expand the powers of government, and for officials of the 
court, this takes the form of seeking to prosecute and convict more 
people than is necessary to protect the rights of the people.

This is where the jury comes in.  The jury consists of a certain number 
of people, drawn from the populace as a whole, who are first screened to 
ensure that they have no interest at stake in the case, beyond the 
general interest in the conviction of criminals and the acquittal of 
innocent people.  They are paid whether they convict or acquit, and a 
decision to acquit, unless obtained by unlawful influence on the jury, 
is final.

In short, trial by jury means that in disputes between the government 
and the people, the people decide.

This is not to say that juries never err.  They do, and often blatantly 
so, but in many cases where the jury acquits a guilty defendant or 
convicts an innocent one, it can be shown that the jury was led to this 
by systematic misconduct on the part of the officials of the court.  A 
recent review of many dozens of American prisoners, convicted of murder, 
who were later exonerated by DNA evidence, shows a common paradigm where 
the prosecution relentlessly pursues the conviction of an early suspect, 
ignoring (if not hiding) exculpatory evidence along the way, and in some 
instances unknowingly allowing the actual culprit to testify against the 
defendant.

A court can just as easily secure the acquittal of someone who is in 
fact guilty, either though sheer incompetence or by deliberately 
mounting a weak case against the defendant, so that the jury--who is 
sworn to regard only the evidence presented during the trial--has no 
option but to acquit.

There have also been cases where a jury reluctantly convicted a 
defendant whom they fully believed presented no threat to anybody, 
merely because the law demanded the conviction, and the jury regarded 
the law as requiring punishment, instead of merely authorizing punishment.

In these cases, the fault did not lie with the jury system, but with a 
legal and criminal justice system that either through incompetence or 
corrupt intent caused justice to miscarry.

Now some may argue that the jury may consist of twelve bumpkins who 
don't understand the law well enough to render a valid verdict.  This 
can be easily answered by pointing out that if twelve people, selected 
at random, cannot understand the law that applies to the case before 
them, it is a strong indication that the law is too vague to serve 
justice, and should not be enforced (in its present formulation).  It 
also goes without saying that sometimes the judge presiding over a case 
commits errors of logic every bit as stark as that of any jury.

Others may argue that there may be jurors who believe that the alleged 
conduct of the defendant should not be a crime.  This is answered by 
pointing out that this is not a weakness that is peculiar the the jury 
system; there are judges who are known for ruling according to their 
political opinions, and not according to the law (and some of our most 
powerful courts are chief offenders in this regard).  Second, if out of 
twelve persons selected at random, there are more than one or two who 
oppose the law (and not merely opposed to the specifics of the case at 
hand), it is an indication that the law does not serve the interests of 
the whole society, but only a part of it, and therefore should not have 
been made.

Do juries screw up?  Sure.  But the history of the jury system makes it 
pretty clear that trials without juries are no more likely to serve 
justice than trials with them.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On 27 Apr 2008 18:10:24 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
>  Moreover, putting it bluntly, in average half of the jury will have
>less than average IQ, is some cases even significantly low IQ. This may
>affect negatively their capacity to judge something impartially and
>rationally.

You don't really get the point about being tried by a jury of your
peers, do you?

It is not an education based safeguard but a class based safeguard.
Although there is talk, here in the UK, of having specialised juries
or no juries but a panel of judges, for financial and technical
trials. It is the job of the lawyers to explain to laymen the case and
the judge to interpret the law, amongst other things.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:47:05 -0400, John VanSickle
<evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>In short, trial by jury means that in disputes between the government 
>and the people, the people decide.

[snip]

I wish that I had read this before posting my own reply then I needn't
have bothered. Well put!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Having served on a few juries here in the U.S., my experiences tend to confirm
most of Warp's concerns as valid.  The problem with the alternative is that
judges are either directly elected or appointed by elected officials who are
voted into office with even less reasoning and objective scrutiny than one
finds in a jury trial.  Suspicions that those in power are not acting with the
interests of justice as their primary motivating force are often well founded.
Panels of knowledgeable individuals seeking to act genuinely in the interests of
justice would indeed be a vast improvement over the current system, but that's
NOT what would happen were the right to a jury trial to be abolished. The U.S.
is a fragmented society in which religious, ethnic, racial and class bigotry
abound (middle-aged white male of above average income speaking). For all of
its flaws, the jury system is a very necessary check against the unlimited
exploitation of ordinary people by the privileged classes.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> In other words, jury trials are there to prevent judges to create law as it 
> fits them.

  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.

  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?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Trial by jury goes to the very question that is at the heart of 
> political science:  Is the government primary over the people, or are 
> the people primary over the government?

  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 not to say that juries never err.  They do, and often blatantly 
> so, but in many cases where the jury acquits a guilty defendant or 
> convicts an innocent one, it can be shown that the jury was led to this 
> by systematic misconduct on the part of the officials of the court.  A 
> recent review of many dozens of American prisoners, convicted of murder, 
> who were later exonerated by DNA evidence, shows a common paradigm where 
> the prosecution relentlessly pursues the conviction of an early suspect, 
> ignoring (if not hiding) exculpatory evidence along the way, and in some 
> instances unknowingly allowing the actual culprit to testify against the 
> defendant.

  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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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?

  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).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  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] tagpovrayorg> 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

On 28 Apr 2008 11:05:20 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 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.

--
H²

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. :-)

Look into my eyes. You are feeling sleepy. …
:-)

-- 

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

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