Judgement by jury

[Aenlic]

I think the Jury alone is insufficient. There should be layers, like passing a law.

Should have a trial with a jury who deliberate behind closed doors and trained judges who deliberate in the open. Both verdicts should concur, otherwise a new trial is required.

Look at the jury findings in the South before the civil rights movement. Black suspect and a jury full of white men. Guilty.

And likewise, look at urban population centers. OJ simpson, innocent? Blacks want to get other blacks off the hook because of their preception of whitey crackers who rule the earth.

In most U.S. states, that's essentially already in practice, in regards to sentencing. The judge can set aside a jury's sentencing if the judge deems it to be too extreme. The case of the British nanny a few years back is a good example. However, in the case of guilt or innocence, you are correct; but there is also the appeals process as well.

And as far as the O. J. Simpson verdict goes, I seem to recall that his jury was mostly white, drawn from the rather non-ethnic population of Simi Valley, California. But I do get your point.

[Divinus Arma]

In most U.S. states, that's essentially already in practice, in regards to sentencing. The judge can set aside a jury's sentencing if the judge deems it to be too extreme. The case of the British nanny a few years back is a good example. However, in the case of guilt or innocence, you are correct; but there is also the appeals process as well.

And as far as the O. J. Simpson verdict goes, I seem to recall that his jury was mostly white, drawn from the rather non-ethnic population of Simi Valley, California. But I do get your point.

Oh really?http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../Jurypage.html

9 blacks, 2 hispanics, and 1 white.

So you are pretty much fill of sh*t. Thanks for your input.

[Aenlic]

Oh really?http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../Jurypage.html

9 blacks, 2 hispanics, and 1 white.

So you are pretty much fill of sh*t. Thanks for your input.

As I said, I seemed to recall it. I wasn't sure and said so. Thanks for correcting me in an adult fashion. And thanks for the pointless, unnecessary and uncalled for childish insult. I'll keep my opinion of you to myself, I think.

[Divinus Arma]

As I said, I seemed to recall it. I wasn't sure and said so. Thanks for correcting me in an adult fashion. And thanks for the pointless, unnecessary and uncalled for childish insult. I'll keep my opinion of you to myself, I think.

Your welcome. I had fun, how about you?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh really?http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj.../Jurypage.html

9 blacks, 2 hispanics, and 1 white.

So you are pretty much fill of sh*t. Thanks for your input.

That's the murder trial.

With Aenlic, I seem to recall a mostly white jury too. And indeed, the civil trial did consist of eight whites.


honkies

[Divinus Arma]

That's the murder trial.

With Aenlic, I seem to recall a mostly white jury too. And indeed, the civil trial did consist of eight whites.


honkies

You are correct. And he was found responsible. Exactly my point.

[Pindar]

My conclusion is: here it would be a disaster, and i guess that it would be dismissed shortly. But i still keep the judge only system (here 3) for me, i want it to be the most scientific as possible. (i just expect to see the minimal tax of convictions as possible)

Thanks for the information.

Soulforged,

I have legal license in both the U.S. and Japan. The U.S. Common law tradition is quite distinct from Japan's civil code which is more along lines you are familiar (i.e. the three judge model). One issue you may want to consider is how the two systems approach the notion of justice. The Civil Code model is necessarily elitist. The Judge is specifically and uniquely trained to uncover the true and similarly the just. Under a Common Law standard justice is a construct. Professionalism is necessary to properly act as an advocate in an adversarial system and maintain the rules of engagement, but the base question of "what is just?" does not require specialized training. The common citizen is taken as having equal insight into the nature of the good and the true.

Japan is also moving toward a jury system as well.

[Xiahou]

Professionalism is necessary to properly act as an advocate in an adversarial system and maintain the rules of engagement, but the base question of "what is just?" does not require specialized training. The common citizen is taken as having equal insight into the nature of the good and the true.

Well said. That notion was the gist of my argument.

[Pindar]

Well said. That notion was the gist of my argument.

Thank you sir.

[bmolsson]

Professionalism is necessary to properly act as an advocate in an adversarial system and maintain the rules of engagement, but the base question of "what is just?" does not require specialized training. The common citizen is taken as having equal insight into the nature of the good and the true.

The question "what is just?" have nothing to do with the legal process. This question is to be asked during the process of writing the laws. Using this question during a trial would only make it an emotional charade and people would not be equal to the law. The jury system is a flawed position.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The question "what is just?" have nothing to do with the legal process. This question is to be asked during the process of writing the laws. Using this question during a trial would only make it an emotional charade and people would not be equal to the law. The jury system is a flawed position.

Every system is a flawed system.
The jury system is simply the one that insults the sensibilities of the smallest amount of people.

[bmolsson]

Every system is a flawed system.
The jury system is simply the one that insults the sensibilities of the smallest amount of people.

With over 2 million prisoners in US, I wouldn't call that a small amount of people.....

[Xiahou]

The question "what is just?" have nothing to do with the legal process.

Wonder why it's called the Justice system then?

[bmolsson]

Wonder why it's called the Justice system then?

The famous English humor......

[Papewaio]

The question "what is just?" have nothing to do with the legal process. This question is to be asked during the process of writing the laws. .

That would only be possible if the politicians wrote every law without the influence of a special interest group.

Additionaly every law would have to cover every situation of a case to give it full justice. Emotional and mental state of the accused, amount of information provided by physical evidence (finger prints, DNA etc), validaty of the witnesses... all aspects would have to be written into the law and looked up to have a law that was purely based on its writings to be just.

Using this question during a trial would only make it an emotional charade and people would not be equal to the law. The jury system is a flawed position.

If a law is just the majority of citizens should be able to understand that law. If the average citizen cannot comprehend the law nor the evidence showing a conviction of a person for not obeying that law then it would not be just to convict someone.

What kind of country would you like to live in where the laws cannot be understood without a decade of specialist training?

Jurys are as flawed as the rest of democracy. A democracy has the citizens elect professionals to rule the country. A jury elects if a professional should or should not pass sentence on the accused.

[Xiahou]

If a law is just the majority of citizens should be able to understand that law. If the average citizen cannot comprehend the law nor the evidence showing a conviction of a person for not obeying that law then it would not be just to convict someone.

What kind of country would you like to live in where the laws cannot be understood without a decade of specialist training?

Indeed, as I've said, if law is incomprehensible juries aren't the problem- the incomprehensible laws are. You can hardly convict someone for violating a law that they can't even understand.

[bmolsson]

That would only be possible if the politicians wrote every law without the influence of a special interest group.

Additionaly every law would have to cover every situation of a case to give it full justice. Emotional and mental state of the accused, amount of information provided by physical evidence (finger prints, DNA etc), validaty of the witnesses... all aspects would have to be written into the law and looked up to have a law that was purely based on its writings to be just.

The politicians are democratically elected to make your voice heard. Your resoning have absolutely no place in a democratic society.
Further more, mental state etc are to be evaluated by an expert who will testify. A jury have to competence what so ever to do so.

If a law is just the majority of citizens should be able to understand that law. If the average citizen cannot comprehend the law nor the evidence showing a conviction of a person for not obeying that law then it would not be just to convict someone.

What kind of country would you like to live in where the laws cannot be understood without a decade of specialist training?

Any western country at present day. Democracy is not only about rights, its also about responsibility. You can never defend your self with that you didn't know. The citizens have elected people to create laws, which are to be enforced. If they don't understand what their elected politicians have decided, they have failed their responsibility as voters.
Your resoning has nothing to do with the question at hand, it's rather criticism on a democratic process.

Jurys are as flawed as the rest of democracy. A democracy has the citizens elect professionals to rule the country. A jury elects if a professional should or should not pass sentence on the accused.

Yes, jurys are flawed, therefore they should not be used. A civilian has no right what so ever to decide if I am guilty or not of a crime.

[Soulforged]

That would only be possible if the politicians wrote every law without the influence of a special interest group.

Additionaly every law would have to cover every situation of a case to give it full justice. Emotional and mental state of the accused, amount of information provided by physical evidence (finger prints, DNA etc), validaty of the witnesses... all aspects would have to be written into the law and looked up to have a law that was purely based on its writings to be just.

The problem to answer you is that i don't know if we're talking of the same thing, but i'll try to explain myself. Here we call the science not law, but "derecho" wich comes from "directum" (rect, oriented to or by, from the latin) the "derecho" (that would be translated to english like "right") has four sources: jurisprudence, law (ley here, "lex" from the roman language), doctrine and custom. Between the four they cover every hole mentioned avobe by you, so there's no need to establish them in the law, because there's others sources that the judge, jurists and lawyers take in account, and that anyone without a minimal knowledge of the science will never know, therefore cannot make a true judgement in this complicated matter, that's not a question of morality or simple custom, but right, directum.

If a law is just the majority of citizens should be able to understand that law. If the average citizen cannot comprehend the law nor the evidence showing a conviction of a person for not obeying that law then it would not be just to convict someone.

In criminal matters the person doesn't have to comprehend the type described by the law, they just have to know that the action they're performing has some disvalue of action, i mean that the action is seeing as bad even in the enviorament outside the law. In civil matters the subject is different, but civil matters doesn't carry conviction anyway.

What kind of country would you like to live in where the laws cannot be understood without a decade of specialist training?

Well here you don't need all that time to comprehend it with suffiently to know what is the action that follows the right. To comprehend all the extension that the law can achieve is another thing, but the common citizen doesn't need to know that, only, of course, if they are in a jury.

Jurys are as flawed as the rest of democracy. A democracy has the citizens elect professionals to rule the country. A jury elects if a professional should or should not pass sentence on the accused.[/

Again the certain and eternal true of democracy is the best. Even if we achived true democracy in some time i always will want to be judged by an authoritarian state, so you don't really have to accept that formality if you know that those people's are just ignorant.