Judgement by jury

[Xiahou]

1- Even if you try to teach the jury the science of law 5 h a day, it's too little time to understand (even more in complicated cases), and too much time wasted. The judgements by this standard can be delayed only by that. I've even heard that in USA the judgements can be delayed to the point of prescription just selecting the jury!!. I'll have to study for 6 years only to graduate myself, and more if i want specialization. But in reality study never ends, if you really want to practice law properly you've to keep yourself informed on pages and pages of doctrine and jurisprudence, besides of course of sociology, phylosophy, history and all the other auxialiary sciences of the law.

If the law is too archaic for your average juror to be able to comprehend, then I don't think it's the jurors that are the problem.

Isn´t "become removed" a synonym for being impartial?

No.

[Soulforged]

If the law is too archaic for your average juror to be able to comprehend, then I don't think it's the jurors that are the problem.

No.

The law is not archaic, and i believe that you've no idea of what you're talking about. The law is complicated, the text doesn't explain just by itself, it has centuries of tireless studies behind, and even some questions still don't have any certain answer. But just to enlight your doubts i would give you and example. You're a juror and you'll say me what is your decision on this case: A train is going close to a river when it suddenly looses control. The wagons are full of children and to save some of them the driver must separate various wagons of the front so at least the children on the back can survive. Do you think that this guy is justifated? And notice that this is a very simple case in the doctrine. But make your guesses.

[Xiahou]

But just to enlight your doubts i would give you and example. You're a juror and you'll say me what is your decision on this case: A train is going close to a river when it suddenly looses control. The wagons are full of children and to save some of them the driver must separate various wagons of the front so at least the children on the back can survive. Do you think that this guy is justifated? And notice that this is a very simple case in the doctrine. But make your guesses.

Justified in what? Is he accused of violating a law or committing a crime? If so, what crime? No one could make a judgement of anything based on that

[Soulforged]

Justified in what? Is he accused of violating a law or committing a crime? If so, what crime? No one could make a judgement of anything based on that

If you don't see the crime there then just that proves me right.

Pindar: Again you're talking about a formality and morality when you say "The common citizen is taken as having equal insight into the nature of the good and the true". There's no truth there, the citizen can never have the same knowledge of law (not morality, but law) that those who practice them. In any way, while a judge can overrule the decision of the jury i'm ok with the system. To me justice is a question of science, is not a simple theme of points of view based on morality, that can be very different from person to person, so it has it's system, it aplication and it's process.

[Pindar]

...you're talking about a formality and morality when you say "The common citizen is taken as having equal insight into the nature of the good and the true". There's no truth there, the citizen can never have the same knowledge of law (not morality, but law) that those who practice them. In any way, while a judge can overrule the decision of the jury i'm ok with the system. To me justice is a question of science, is not a simple theme of points of view based on morality, that can be very different from person to person, so it has it's system, it aplication and it's process.

Your sense of jurisprudence is very different from the Common Law model. Law is considered the handmade of justice, not the other way around. Law void of justice is seen as inseparable from tyranny. Thus, the moral component is thought essential. The moral component that grounds law is given voice by appealing to the common man (the citizen). The common man thereby trumps the specialist. This is the case with voting rights (universal suffrage). This is the case with the judgment of one's fellow citizenry (the jury system).

[Soulforged]

Your sense of jurisprudence is very different from the Common Law model. Law is considered the handmade of justice, not the other way around. Law void of justice is seen as inseparable from tyranny. Thus, the moral component is thought essential. The moral component that grounds law is given voice by appealing to the common man (the citizen). The common man thereby trumps the specialist. This is the case with voting rights (universal suffrage). This is the case with the judgment of one's fellow citizenry (the jury system).

Though i disagree with your conception, i respect it. Thanks for that information.

[Pindar]

Though i disagree with your conception, i respect it. Thanks for that information.

My pleasure.

[bmolsson]

Your sense of jurisprudence is very different from the Common Law model. Law is considered the handmade of justice, not the other way around. Law void of justice is seen as inseparable from tyranny. Thus, the moral component is thought essential. The moral component that grounds law is given voice by appealing to the common man (the citizen). The common man thereby trumps the specialist. This is the case with voting rights (universal suffrage). This is the case with the judgment of one's fellow citizenry (the jury system).

The common law model is a compromise surviving the old feodalistic era in Europe. Moral is a part of law writing, but it can't be a part of the execution of the legal system, since it then have removed the most important part of a legal system, predictability and transparancy.