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