Juries: Yes or No? - Page 8

Poofler · #71 02-06-2007, 09:55 PM

Like with AC, it's easy for both sides to say theirs is better, when only one can be observed. So, you can have your opinion. I do think you overestimate the zeal of 12 soccer moms and the unemployed who show up, say "huh", and then go on their merry way as some grand check on the death star.

Al68 · #72 02-06-2007, 09:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, then they're not accountable to anyone. And they have lots of power. That's a bad combination.
"Peer" juries are not accountable for their decision, but their power is limited to protecting the defendant for that case.

Poofler · #73 02-06-2007, 09:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, then they're not accountable to anyone. And they have lots of power. That's a bad combination.
"Peer" juries are not accountable for their decision, but their power is limited to protecting the defendant for that case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, no jury is ever accountable for their decision. This isn't any different. In every specific case, the 12 people in that box don't have to answer to anyone. If you replace the peers with professionals, their power would still be limited to be the only ones who can say "guilty". And following your logic, judges are bad.

Al68 · #74 02-06-2007, 10:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, then they're not accountable to anyone. And they have lots of power. That's a bad combination.
"Peer" juries are not accountable for their decision, but their power is limited to protecting the defendant for that case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, no jury is ever accountable for their decision. This isn't any different. In every specific case, the 12 people in that box doesn't have to answer to anyone. You basically just said judges are bad.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point was that with "peer" juries, the power is not concentrated in the hands of a few unaccountable people. It is spread out among a lot of unaccountable people, and that power is limited to restraining the power of the state.

I'm not saying the "peer" jury system is perfect. I just wouldn't want to give it up without a replacement for the protection it offers. And the source of this protection is the fact that jurors are not a part of the system.

Poofler · #75 02-06-2007, 10:12 PM

Alright, I understand that. Though I wouldn't want some tiny pool of professional jurors. And I suppose we feel differently about the actual protection the system provides.

Skidoo · #76 02-06-2007, 10:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Like with AC, it's easy for both sides to say theirs is better, when only one can be observed. So, you can have your opinion. I do think you overestimate the zeal of 12 soccer moms and the unemployed who show up, say "huh", and then go on their merry way as some grand check on the death star.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't entirely a matter of speculation. Government has already betrayed a tendency toward tyranny.

It is government's answerability to those twelve soccer moms that keeps it wearing a smiley face. Left on its own and unaccountable to the people, it would quickly reveal its Darth Vader side, and we would have precious little recourse.

Poofler · #77 02-06-2007, 10:22 PM

You're telling me the jury system is constantly checking stupid laws? Despite that system, we manage to get plenty of them. In practice, the juries are dumb-factfinders who want to get the hell out of there asap. They aren't sitting in armchairs with pipes and speaking in British accents about the moral implications of their verdicts. And next, are you telling me that despite that juries don't exercise this restraint, government would suddenly turn more tyrannial, judges would cast away their oaths, and evil legislators everywhere would rejoice that they can finally pass laws those damned juries won't validate?

Al68 · #78 02-06-2007, 10:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, I understand that. Though I wouldn't want some tiny pool of professional jurors. And I suppose we feel differently about the actual protection the system provides.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I think it provides a lot. And I'm not just looking at what juries do, I'm looking at what states historically do in the absence of peer juries. This is where the real protection lies.

Al68 · #79 02-06-2007, 10:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It is government's answerability to those twelve soccer moms that keeps it wearing a smiley face.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. I found myself agreeing with you for once until you said this.
Exactly how is the government "answerable" to the jury?

Skidoo · #80 02-06-2007, 11:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're telling me the jury system is constantly checking stupid laws? Despite that system, we manage to get plenty of them. In practice, the juries are dumb-factfinders who want to get the hell out of there asap. They aren't sitting in armchairs with pipes and speaking in British accents about the moral implications of their verdicts. And next, are you telling me that despite that juries don't exercise this restraint, government would suddenly turn more tyrannial, judges would cast away their oaths, and evil legislators everywhere would rejoice that they can finally pass laws those damned juries won't validate?

[/ QUOTE ]

The presence of the jury system greatly reduces the prospects of tyranny through law to begin with, so it never gets that far. The jurors are there to express the moral conscience of the source of all civil authority: the people. This role is entirely in keeping with not needing special qualification from their servant government which they are there to oversee.