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?

--

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.

--

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