Judgement by jury

Printable View

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

08-31-2005, 07:38
Soulforged

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Canada, New Zealand and a huge chunk of Commonwealth nations.

Yes you're right, but i'm not aware of their legislative situation.

Quote:

The sentence is still up to the judge and the judge is supposed to help inform the jury on how to measure the facts.

But the judge can only overrule in exceptional cases. In the rest you're guy in the middle of an ingnorant mob.

Quote:

The Judicial system is I suppose another part of the government. I do not think they should be immune to the democratic process. Also I think citizens should be involved in government. One of the key points of democracy is having well informed and active citizens.

You're right, but it will not be real democracy anyway. About the judges, it will not be acceptable, good judges are unknown to the average people, and the actual "democratic" system will not work if we let the judges be elected. As i said before the actual democracy supposes a group of elites who supports the campaings of the parties and those parties later own a real debt with them, with the judges it would happen the same, and they wouldn't be able to be impartial.
08-31-2005, 07:48
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The jury represents a cross section of the people. Democracy also represents a cross section of the people.

Only at a local level. Laws are to be the same nationally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

I still hold onto the principle that a law that cannot be understood by those who it effects is not a just law. I agree with a Judge deciding what the penalty for breaking a law is as they can match it with previous cases. The jury of peers allows a litmus test of if a law is understandable to whom it effects most, it also is the social strata that understands the context of the accused actions most closely.

A court session is not a lithmus test, it's real life. Somebody is accused of a crime and his/hers whole life depends on the outcome. It's unresponsible to use citizens as some kind of "comprehension" test on law. We just have to elect better politicians that write the laws from the beginning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Maybe a better system would be publication of the juries deliberations... make them open after the case has finished.

That would be to put them at risk, a risk they are to take without their choice. I think that would make the jury system even more unpredictable and unjust.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Why not advocate a benevolent dictatorship and leave leading the country to professionals?

What does this has to do with a judiciary system ?
08-31-2005, 07:53
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Canada, New Zealand and a huge chunk of Commonwealth nations.

Yep, they are all under the Queen. And your point was ?
08-31-2005, 08:00
Soulforged

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

A court session is not a lithmus test, it's real life. Somebody is accused of a crime and his/hers whole life depends on the outcome. It's unresponsible to use citizens as some kind of "comprehension" test on law. We just have to elect better politicians that write the laws from the beginning.

There's no reason to get to that bmolsson. The thing is that the meaning of the word just is mistaken. Just means "ajusted", to what, well to society, the law must adapt to society and society is not a simple thing, so law for instance cannot simplify it. When we enter the criminal law (i don't like that term i prefer penal, but i don't know if in english it could be named that way) the system gets more complicated because there's problems even with the justification of the existence of it. But if criminal law is accepted you cannot expect something simple, it has a very specific scientific method that's very difficult to grasp. Again you cannot use the formality excuse to justify the presence of ignorant people in a court wich treats with the life of another human being.
08-31-2005, 08:03
Soulforged

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Yep, they are all under the Queen. And your point was ?

LOL- I like that. This countries are all under the ideal power of some monarch and we still call them democracies. Is pretty absurd.
08-31-2005, 08:16
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

There are very few democracies in the world. We all love to put a king, president or similar on top of us and worship him/her.....
08-31-2005, 08:24
Soulforged

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

There are very few democracies in the world. We all love to put a king, president or similar on top of us and worship him/her.....

In fact there're no democracies at all.
08-31-2005, 10:32
Adrian II

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulforged

LOL- I like that. This countries are all under the ideal power of some monarch and we still call them democracies. Is pretty absurd.

Apparently, things aren't always what they seem. Ever been to a 'People's Democracy', Soulforged? ~:cool:
08-31-2005, 12:03
Duke of Gloucester

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

But the judge can only overrule in exceptional cases. In the rest you're guy in the middle of an ingnorant mob.

In the England and Wales, the judge must direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty if he or she believes that the jury could not reasonably convict given the evidence presented. If this happens, it would normally be at the end of the prosecution case. It is unusual, but not exceptional.
08-31-2005, 12:52
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

In the England and Wales, the judge must direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty if he or she believes that the jury could not reasonably convict given the evidence presented. If this happens, it would normally be at the end of the prosecution case. It is unusual, but not exceptional.

Doesn't that really defeat the purpose ??
08-31-2005, 14:24
A.Saturnus

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The jury represents a cross section of the people. Democracy also represents a cross section of the people.

I still hold onto the principle that a law that cannot be understood by those who it effects is not a just law. I agree with a Judge deciding what the penalty for breaking a law is as they can match it with previous cases. The jury of peers allows a litmus test of if a law is understandable to whom it effects most, it also is the social strata that understands the context of the accused actions most closely.

Maybe a better system would be publication of the juries deliberations... make them open after the case has finished.

Why not advocate a benevolent dictatorship and leave leading the country to professionals?

To call a jury democratic is a mockery of democracy. For one, juries are not representative of the population as the lawyers of both parties can exclude candidates. But even if that were not the case, even a random sample of people cannot have any democratic authority. If it could, why not make elections a lot easier?

If the law is to be undersood by everyone, no law can ever be just. And BTW, does it happen often that the jury comes forward and says "we don´t understand the law and therefore the defendant must be released"? If there´s a doubt that the law is just, it may not be applied. If there´s a danger that the law is incomprehensible, it is the least responsible to let laypeople decide. The sense of morality of 12 people cannot be a basis for jurisdiction.

The comparison to a benevolent dictatorship is misapplied. As I said, a defendant has to be judged according to the law, and nothing else. The law is the product of a democratic process. A benevolent dictator makes decision what is best according to his view and his sense of morality. The sense of morality of a judge is irrelevant. The judge must apply the law, nothing else. That is a purely proffesional role.
08-31-2005, 16:31
Duke of Gloucester

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
In the England and Wales, the judge must direct the jury to find the defendant not guilty if he or she believes that the jury could not reasonably convict given the evidence presented. If this happens, it would normally be at the end of the prosecution case. It is unusual, but not exceptional.

Doesn't that really defeat the purpose ??

No. One of Soulforged (and if IRC correctly, yours too) objections to the jury system is that you are at the mercy of 12 ordinary people. This meets some of that objection in that you can't be convicted perversely. Of course you can be acquited peversely, and this is a disadvantage. Those who support the jury system think this advantage is outweighed by involving the people in the justice system and by its limit on the power of judges.

Quote:

Originally posted by A.Saturnus
To call a jury democratic is a mockery of democracy. For one, juries are not representative of the population as the lawyers of both parties can exclude candidates. But even if that were not the case, even a random sample of people cannot have any democratic authority. If it could, why not make elections a lot easier?

Only if you have a very limitted definition of what democracy is. You could be even more limitted and say that true democracy (rule by the people) would involve a referendum on every decision and call an election a "mockery" of democracy. As Pape has already explained, a jury system is "democratic" because it involves all citizens, in the sense that anyone might be called to serve on a jury, in decisions about guilt and innocence. I don't think that Pape was saying countries without jury trials are not democratic.

Quote:

And BTW, does it happen often that the jury comes forward and says "we don´t understand the law and therefore the defendant must be released"? If there´s a doubt that the law is just, it may not be applied. If there´s a danger that the law is incomprehensible, it is the least responsible to let laypeople decide. The sense of morality of 12 people cannot be a basis for jurisdiction.

Juries don't make decisions based on law. Those are made by the judge. Juries make decisions on fact. They need to understand the facts and issues and the judge is responsible for explaining these to them. For example if a case hinges on whether a person has committed murder or manslaughter, the judge will not give a full explanation of the law on murder and manslaughter; he or she will explain how the law applies to the particular case, and will outline to them the key decisions of facts they need to decide and, once they have made those decisions, the implications for the verdict. The question about whether anyone would be acquitted because the jury don't understand the law would never arise. The judge makes legal decisions. Juries decide on facts.

There is a chance that if the jury decides that a law is unjust, they won't enforce it, but I like this. It is a safeguard to ensure that the government and judiciary don't develop laws that the people don't consent to. It can't be more responsible to enforce unjust laws.

Quote:

As I said, a defendant has to be judged according to the law, and nothing else.

The problem is it isn't just about the law. If two people have a fight and one of them is in court because a couple of witnesses say that person threw the first punch and there was no provocation. The accused says that the other person was very threatening and he acted in self-defence. The law is pretty clear. If the accused genuinely believed he was in danger and acted reasonably to protect himself, he is innocent. If he threw the first punch for any other reason, he is guilty of assualt and battery. (I think that is what the law of England and Wales says, but I would be happy to let a judge decide on that.) To come to a verdict someone needs to decide who is more reliable, the accused or the two witnesses. I think I could do this just as well as a judge. What, in a judges legal training, makes him or her better at making this decision the twelve laypeople?
09-01-2005, 00:34
Papewaio

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

I don't think that Pape was saying countries without jury trials are not democratic.

Yes and No.

You can be a democracy without trial by jury.

But there is a very strong correlation to the number of long term vibrant democracies and those that have trial by jury. (I think this is more a case of finding fire fighters at fires not fire fighters lighting fires).

Mind you that correlation also overlaps with British/US colonies and more open minded religious tolerance.
09-01-2005, 00:42
Papewaio

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

To call a jury democratic is a mockery of democracy. For one, juries are not representative of the population as the lawyers of both parties can exclude candidates. But even if that were not the case, even a random sample of people cannot have any democratic authority. If it could, why not make elections a lot easier?

Quote:

One of the key points of democracy is having well informed and active citizens.

Being on a jury is a duty that helps keep citizens active and informed. Add to that the

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson.

Citizens should particapte and be vigilant and not just rest on their laurels leaving others to look out for their freedoms.
09-01-2005, 01:00
Redleg

Re: Judgement by jury

How many here have ever sat through the Jury Selection process for thier country - if a jury is used?

How many here have ever watched how a trail is conducted in their nation's courtrooms? (Or like here in the United States most trails are conducted either at the county or city level.)

Trails are an interesting thing to watch in the United States. The jury selection process is often the highlight of the trail - and the responses of the jury pool during the picking process can be very informative. (I watched one as a member of the jury pool, unfortunately they picked all the individuals they needed for the trail before they got to me.)

Every now and then I go to the court house to see a court case in action - that is the other thing that I like about the United States court session - most have to be open to public viewing unless motions have been filed to prevent it. (Or that is my understanding of the constitution and the laws regarding courts.)

In the United States you get a choice of what type of trail you want - well for misdemenors (SP) anyway. Rarely does an individual pick a jury trail for those type of cases - but the process is still interesting. After seeing how Judges rule in these cases - I would prefer a jury trail if I was ever brought up on any charge that might result in jail time.

A judge is regardless how impartial he claims to be, no matter how perfect the process is in selecting judges - their individual baises will always play a part in their decision making process. At least in a jury trail - some cases require a majority opinion - some all of them agreeing - there must be a consenus of opinion about the verdict.
09-01-2005, 02:37
Soulforged

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Apparently, things aren't always what they seem. Ever been to a 'People's Democracy', Soulforged? ~:cool:

No i know. As the democracy itself it's just formality. But the royal family still keeps going without even working, they do nothing. Or am i wrong? ~:confused:

Quote:

How many here have ever watched how a trail is conducted in their nation's courtrooms? (Or like here in the United States most trails are conducted either at the county or city level.)

I've.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedLeg

Trails are an interesting thing to watch in the United States. The jury selection process is often the highlight of the trail - and the responses of the jury pool during the picking process can be very informative. (I watched one as a member of the jury pool, unfortunately they picked all the individuals they needed for the trail before they got to me.)

This instrument could be used by lawyers to delay the process. Besides i already say that all this is a waste of time and has the appearence of a show.

Quote:

Every now and then I go to the court house to see a court case in action - that is the other thing that I like about the United States court session - most have to be open to public viewing unless motions have been filed to prevent it. (Or that is my understanding of the constitution and the laws regarding courts.)

Here's the same.

Quote:

In the United States you get a choice of what type of trail you want - well for misdemenors (SP) anyway. Rarely does an individual pick a jury trail for those type of cases - but the process is still interesting. After seeing how Judges rule in these cases - I would prefer a jury trail if I was ever brought up on any charge that might result in jail time.

And why is that? The fact that you can only chose when it's a midemenors just prooves me right (at least with your system). Is just the contrary the most important, and for instance the one that requires more science, so it has to be turned the other way to be more just.

Quote:

A judge is regardless how impartial he claims to be, no matter how perfect the process is in selecting judges - their individual baises will always play a part in their decision making process. At least in a jury trail - some cases require a majority opinion - some all of them agreeing - there must be a consenus of opinion about the verdict.

This is not my point, at least. The impartiality of the judge does matter, but the problem here turns around science, the judge alone trial is more scientific. And i agree with everybody the jury is more formally democratic, but that doesn't make it better. The simple idea of form without content is enough to understand why. Even if it was real democracy, that will not ensure a scientific work from the jury. So the problem is in reality how ignorant of the law can be a jury. I would say very much. The life of an human being is at stakes on a criminal case.
09-01-2005, 02:59
Redleg

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulforged

This instrument could be used by lawyers to delay the process. Besides i already say that all this is a waste of time and has the appearence of a show.

Oh its indeed a show - however its an important step in determining if the possible jurist is incapable of listening and then deciding.

Quote:

And why is that? The fact that you can only chose when it's a midemenors just prooves me right (at least with your system). Is just the contrary the most important, and for instance the one that requires more science, so it has to be turned the other way to be more just.

Not at all - it doesn't prove your point. It shows that the system allows the individual charged with criminal case or even a civil case - to pick how his judgement will happen. Its perfect examble of freedom in action. Choice.

Quote:

This is not my point, at least. The impartiality of the judge does matter, but the problem here turns around science, the judge alone trial is more scientific. And i agree with everybody the jury is more formally democratic, but that doesn't make it better. The simple idea of form without content is enough to understand why. Even if it was real democracy, that will not ensure a scientific work from the jury. So the problem is in reality how ignorant of the law can be a jury. I would say very much. The life of an human being is at stakes on a criminal case.

The jury can be ignorant of the law - the lawyers and the judges obligation is to educate them on the law as it relates to the charge that the defendant is facing. The impartiallity of the Judge can only be assumed never proven. The impartiallity of the jury can be meant by the jury pool process where each side gets to weed out jurists that might be baised toward the case. Do some lawyers ruin this process - yes indeed. Does history show that this process is sometimes unfair based upon the laws of the land - yes indeed. But the process - in at least my opinion - of a Jury Trail is better then standing in front of just one judge or a panel of three judges for judgement by them on your actions.
09-01-2005, 04:08
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh its indeed a show .

This more or less describes my opinion on a jury trial. Entertainment, but nothing about law...... ~;)
09-01-2005, 15:44
A.Saturnus

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Only if you have a very limitted definition of what democracy is. You could be even more limitted and say that true democracy (rule by the people) would involve a referendum on every decision and call an election a "mockery" of democracy. As Pape has already explained, a jury system is "democratic" because it involves all citizens, in the sense that anyone might be called to serve on a jury, in decisions about guilt and innocence. I don't think that Pape was saying countries without jury trials are not democratic.

Whether all citizens are involved is irrelvant. The point is that an individual jury cannot claim to be a representative of the people anymore than a judge can. I´m not saying that it is undemocratic, but the argument that a trial by jury would somehow be a more democratic system is wrong.

Quote:

Juries don't make decisions based on law. Those are made by the judge. Juries make decisions on fact. They need to understand the facts and issues and the judge is responsible for explaining these to them. For example if a case hinges on whether a person has committed murder or manslaughter, the judge will not give a full explanation of the law on murder and manslaughter; he or she will explain how the law applies to the particular case, and will outline to them the key decisions of facts they need to decide and, once they have made those decisions, the implications for the verdict. The question about whether anyone would be acquitted because the jury don't understand the law would never arise. The judge makes legal decisions. Juries decide on facts.

There is a chance that if the jury decides that a law is unjust, they won't enforce it, but I like this. It is a safeguard to ensure that the government and judiciary don't develop laws that the people don't consent to. It can't be more responsible to enforce unjust laws.

Well, yes you are right, the jury decides about facts, but it shouldn´t. Actually the judge shouldn´t as well. An expert should decide about facts. Many facts are too complicated to be judged by laypeople. That includes judges and juries.
And "the people" aren´t involved. Only 12 individuals. If these 12 decide that they find a law unjust, that´s only their opinion, not a democratic votum. It should be irrelevant for jurisdiction.

Quote:

To come to a verdict someone needs to decide who is more reliable, the accused or the two witnesses. I think I could do this just as well as a judge. What, in a judges legal training, makes him or her better at making this decision the twelve laypeople?

Probably nothing. That´s why he shouldn´t decide it. All facts in a case should be judged by experts. The judge is still needed to make legal decisions. The jury is superfluous because it cannot judge facts and it cannot judge legal issues. To make a verdict on basis of whom 12 laypeople find more reliable is certainly unjust.
09-01-2005, 16:47
Duke of Gloucester

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Whether all citizens are involved is irrelvant. The point is that an individual jury cannot claim to be a representative of the people anymore than a judge can. I´m not saying that it is undemocratic, but the argument that a trial by jury would somehow be a more democratic system is wrong.

Actually, I am going to claim exactly that. In theory anyone (well, almost anyone) could be called on to serve on a jury. Judges are an elite (they've earnt their elite status by being very learned. Therefore a jury is more represntative of the people.

Quote:

All facts in a case should be judged by experts.

Yes, but who decides when the experts disagree?
09-01-2005, 20:28
A.Saturnus

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Actually, I am going to claim exactly that. In theory anyone (well, almost anyone) could be called on to serve on a jury. Judges are an elite (they've earnt their elite status by being very learned. Therefore a jury is more represntative of the people.

Only by a hair. It remains that 12 individuals chosen in a non-random way, can never be said to have a democratic votum. To put the jury as representatives of the people is a proposterous deception.

Quote:

Yes, but who decides when the experts disagree?

If no consensus can be found, a fact may not be used in the trial.
09-02-2005, 03:12
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Yes, but who decides when the experts disagree?

Well, I don't think a referendum in the local community is a good idea....
09-02-2005, 04:08
Papewaio

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Only by a hair. It remains that 12 individuals chosen in a non-random way, can never be said to have a democratic votum. To put the jury as representatives of the people is a proposterous deception.

Do we use the same 12 at each trial?

No.

So at each trial there is a different 12. Overtime you get more and more of the citizens being at trials. So over time you get a representation of the people.

Part of being a vibrant democracy is particaption of the citizens and being informed. By being part of a jury you have an eye opener into the judicial system.

How in comparison is then doffing ones hat to a professional elite any more representative?
09-02-2005, 06:15
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So at each trial there is a different 12. Overtime you get more and more of the citizens being at trials. So over time you get a representation of the people.

Part of being a vibrant democracy is particaption of the citizens and being informed. By being part of a jury you have an eye opener into the judicial system.

A trial against a individual is NOT some kind education center for voters to understand law. What you describe is outrageous.
09-02-2005, 06:54
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

Double post for some reason.... :embarassed:
09-02-2005, 07:11
Duke of Gloucester

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Well, I don't think a referendum in the local community is a good idea....

Nor do I. Why not choose a group of ordinay people at random, say 12. (In England and Wales it is essentially random. In the US there is a system for rejecting jurors).

Quote:

Orignally posted by A.Saturnus.
If no consensus can be found, a fact may not be used in the trial.

Maybe what we are arguing over is not the use of juries, but the adversarial system. The prosecution and the defence put their opposing cases and the decision on who has made the best case is made by an impartial body. In those circumstances, consensus is impossible.
09-02-2005, 09:49
Soulforged

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redleg

Oh its indeed a show - however its an important step in determining if the possible jurist is incapable of listening and then deciding.

And the jurist on your language is...anyway if it's a show then it prooves my point again, it doesn't have the seriousness required to judge the actions over an human life.

Quote:

Not at all - it doesn't prove your point. It shows that the system allows the individual charged with criminal case or even a civil case - to pick how his judgement will happen. Its perfect examble of freedom in action. Choice.

No because you stated that that only happened on minor cases, not in the important ones, when the life of the suspect is at stakes, so it prooves my point on your system at least.

Quote:

The jury can be ignorant of the law - the lawyers and the judges obligation is to educate them on the law as it relates to the charge that the defendant is facing. The impartiallity of the Judge can only be assumed never proven. The impartiallity of the jury can be meant by the jury pool process where each side gets to weed out jurists that might be baised toward the case. Do some lawyers ruin this process - yes indeed. Does history show that this process is sometimes unfair based upon the laws of the land - yes indeed. But the process - in at least my opinion - of a Jury Trail is better then standing in front of just one judge or a panel of three judges for judgement by them on your actions.[/

Well that's when you're right, in your last sentence. The judge has the scientific, methodic and systematic capacity of judge a person by it's actions, the jury will always (because like Pindar said they're the moral component) judge the person by the way he carries his life, wich means morality, wich means that it hasn't a place in court.
09-02-2005, 12:17
bmolsson

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Nor do I. Why not choose a group of ordinay people at random, say 12. (In England and Wales it is essentially random. In the US there is a system for rejecting jurors).

It is not random if they can be rejected. Also random has nothing to do with justice. That would mean that luck is a part of the determination on your guilt. It's not a green card lottery we are talking about.
09-02-2005, 13:38
econ21

Re: Judgement by jury

It's interesting to see the different national perspectives of posters - we see our own juidicial systems as obviously right while finding those of other countries strange and lacking legitimacy. At least that's the case with me - as Brit, I like the random 12 jury system. I distrust both non-jury systems and weeding out impartial jurors as in America, for reasons I am not sure I can articulate.

I served on a jury before Christmas and it vastly increased my faith in the UK legal system. However, on reflection, I don't think that's an argument for a jury system as what impressed me most was the judge and, to a lesser extent, the lawyers. The judge was extremely sharp and also admirably fair. To be honest, he probably would have done a better job deciding guilt and innocence than we jurors did. On the other hand, there are stories of judges falling asleep in trial, making ridiculous arguments (eg, to UK posters, regarding the "fragrance" of Mary Archer) etc.

The jury were pretty conscientious, trying to cope with a mass of detail and also come to terms with concepts of law that we only vaguely understood. Some of us scribbled frantic notes, everyone strained to catch every word and nuance. When it came to considering the verdict, everyone had a chance to speak and every witnesses testimony was reviewed. In the end, however, we basically had to decide on matters of fact - from the evidence given, was it clear that person A committed offence X beyond all reasonable doubt. It was not very technical, but just involved people using their common sense to form a judgement based on a variety of data.

Personally, I'd feel a little uneasy about a non-jury system where guilt and innocence was decided by a rather narrow class. Judges are inevitably going to over-represent a certain strata - for example, just by virtue of their income, they will tend experience rather different things to people living in poorer neighbourhoods. There does seem to be something "democratic" about being judged by a cross-section of society.

The US system seems to compromise that representativeness. I'm not sure I fully understand it, but it seems that it effectively allows lawyers to try to change the ethnic, age, gender etc composition of jury to get one more sympathetic to their case. That seems more risky that just taking a cross-section, warts and all.

However, I suspect that these broad differences in how judgements are made do not have a massive effect on the quality of the judicial system, so that if I were brought up in the US or Germany, I would have ended up happily advocating the superiority of their systems.
09-02-2005, 15:32
A.Saturnus

Re: Judgement by jury

Quote:

So at each trial there is a different 12. Overtime you get more and more of the citizens being at trials. So over time you get a representation of the people.

So, if in every election only 12 people would vote but over time everyone would have a chance, that would be democratic? In an individual case, the individual jury would have to have a democratic votum.
I´m not saying that a judge is more representative. Neither the judge nor the jury has a democratic votum. But the law has.

Quote:

Maybe what we are arguing over is not the use of juries, but the adversarial system. The prosecution and the defence put their opposing cases and the decision on who has made the best case is made by an impartial body. In those circumstances, consensus is impossible.

I find this system abhorrent. In Germany, the judge investigates the case and then makes a judgement based on the facts and the law. He is the active part of the trial. What I would like to see is that he´s required by law to follow the opinions of experts over facts. If there´s a consensus over a fact by experts, it has to be taken exactly that way.

Quote:

It was not very technical, but just involved people using their common sense to form a judgement based on a variety of data.

That´s what scares me. The usage of common sense. People make all sorts of mistakes when they use common sense. Also, people mostly do not know why they decide something. When you ask people what considerations they make before the choice what car to buy, they usually name 5 or 6 reasons for a particular car. However statistical analysis has shown that they only apply 2 or maximally 3 factors for such a decision. If people don´t know why they buy a car, can you expect them to know why they find someone guilty?

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page