|
|
#61
02-06-2007, 09:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Juries: Yes or No?
[ QUOTE ]
Time for another post: * You guys keep asking me what kind of arbitration system I want. Why would knowledge of arbitration possibly (and or my specific preference) be valuable in any way, shape or form? Like I said: it's a violent monopoly. Violent monopolies are actively keeping out competition. If you try to compete with them, they will kidnap you, jail you or kill you. Clearrrrly the people who kidnap, jail and murder competition are not interested serving the client or in objective law (ZOMFGLOL how could they possibly care about ethics morality and justice when they're shooting the competition). * Suppose the state took over the food supply and they would let us vote on candidates to rule over the food supply. And the rulers would promise all kinds of fruits, vegetables, pastas, caviars, whatever. And at the end of the day they would decide on one food-menu that everyone unilaterally would have to eat. And what would it be? Ofcourse it would rice and beans, look at Cuba. Where you get foodstamp-type thingies to get exactly one type of unbranded (there's no choice, why put a label on it!?) toothpaste. And then people in bars and cafes would be telling you: "dude, dude, how do YOU think food should be prepared, what do YOU like? huh? huh? huh?". Do you recognize the sick masochism? [/ QUOTE ] Jesus. You don't have to say "I'd rather this be the monopoly". Say "If I had my choice, in freedomland, I'd personally chose X kind of arbitrator." What if the state made football the only sport. You wouldn't answer "would you rather watch football or baseball, if baseball were allowed to exist?? Really? That would be massochistic? 
|
|
#62
02-06-2007, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Juries: Yes or No?
[ QUOTE ]
Al, I know. That's all descriptive. I'm talking about how, normatively, I would set up a judicial system. If I infer some advocacy out of that, we know that in practice the jury is pretty powerful. A case with merit will advance. From there, the judge generally respects the verdict. If he felt that strongly about the merits, the case usually won't have gone to trial. [/ QUOTE ] Well, I agree that juries are not used properly today. But the "peer" jury is there to protect a defendant from the system. So the jurors should not be people who are a part of the system. And the jury should only have a decision to make if the judge determines that there is enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at the end of the trial. This is the way it's supposed to work. The only jury decision that should be "respected" in any sense whatsoever is a "not guilty" verdict.
|
|
#65
02-06-2007, 09:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Juries: Yes or No?
[ QUOTE ]
Who would qualify individuals to serve as panel members, the government? That would defeat the purpose of a jury. [/ QUOTE ] The government appoints judges and I don't see you up in arms about how every judge is a lying corrupt scumbag on the prowl to imprison everyone he sees. And the "purpose" of the jury is far from realized today, with a lot of nasty side effects.
|
|
#66
02-06-2007, 09:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Juries: Yes or No?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Who would qualify individuals to serve as panel members, the government? That would defeat the purpose of a jury. [/ QUOTE ] The government appoints judges and I don't see you up in arms about how every judge is a lying corrupt scumbag on the prowl to imprison everyone he sees. And the "purpose" of the jury is far from realized today, with a lot of nasty side effects. [/ QUOTE ] The jury serves as a check by the people on a corrupt government apparatus.
|
|
#68
02-06-2007, 09:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Juries: Yes or No?
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that if this actually worked, it's better than the current process. I'd still prefer replacing that with a panel. [/ QUOTE ] Why not have both? My only problem with your suggestion is the lack of protection for the accused provided by having a "peer" jury which is not accountable to the system. Presumably, a "professional juror" would be accountable to the system for how well they do their job. Which means they could not serve the same purpose as a "peer" jury.
|
|
#69
02-06-2007, 09:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Juries: Yes or No?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I agree that if this actually worked, it's better than the current process. I'd still prefer replacing that with a panel. [/ QUOTE ] Why not have both? My only problem with your suggestion is the lack of protection for the accused provided by having a "peer" jury which is not accountable to the system. Presumably, a "professional juror" would be accountable to the system for how well they do their job. Which means they could not serve the same purpose as a "peer" jury. [/ QUOTE ] Right, that would be a problem. I'd probably set it up as life appointments, like judges. But a provision to make them quit at a certain age. Too many batty old judges in the system right now.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
