Judgement by jury

[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]

You can hardly convict someone for violating a law that they can't even understand.

Yes, you can and you must. Laws do have a purpose. One of them is to protect the society from threats. These threats doesn't always understand they are threats. If they can be rehabilitated to understand that they are threats so they stop being threats, it's good. If not they have to be removed from the society. Actually US foreign policy is built on this concept........

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

This is outrageous nonsense. The legal system of any society must make just decisions. This is what the citizens expect and deserve, not because they are unrelaibly emotional, but because they rightly assign a high value to justice.

The common law model is a compromise surviving the old feodalistic era in Europe.

The common law pre-dates the feudal system and you have to ask why it survived it. I say it survived because it was perceived as just. It might seem attractive to make predictability and trasnsparency so important that the law is always applied rigidly, but if a system does this, then someone is going to be treated unjustly. I would prefer a system that is more flexible.

It does not matter whether the law is complex or not - the jury is there to decide on fact, not on law. Legal decisions are made by the judge.

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.

This is a killer argument if the alternative you put forward is flawless. I am not convinced.

[bmolsson]

This is outrageous nonsense. The legal system of any society must make just decisions. This is what the citizens expect and deserve, not because they are unrelaibly emotional, but because they rightly assign a high value to justice.

If so is the case, why does murderers get off the hook due to technicalities daily in western society ? Why does we react with loud voice when evidence is not enough and people in the third world are convicted anyway ?
A just decision is based on real evidence and the actual law text, not some opinions from a civil jury that believes the accused is guilty. The law is blind and should continue being so.....

The common law pre-dates the feudal system and you have to ask why it survived it. I say it survived because it was perceived as just. It might seem attractive to make predictability and trasnsparency so important that the law is always applied rigidly, but if a system does this, then someone is going to be treated unjustly. I would prefer a system that is more flexible.

Depends what you define as a feudal system. Just knittpicking from your side.
It did not survive because it was perceived as just, it survived because the population was homogen and had no problem in prosecuting minorities. It has nothing to do in a large modern society, it fits well in a small biased community with protectionistic desires.

It does not matter whether the law is complex or not - the jury is there to decide on fact, not on law. Legal decisions are made by the judge.

Irrelevant. The fact and evidence in a case is just as important as the law itself.

This is a killer argument if the alternative you put forward is flawless. I am not convinced.

The alternative is well educated professionals. In a modern secular society this is always superior to the use of civilian amateurs.

[Papewaio]

If so is the case, why does murderers get off the hook due to technicalities daily in western society ? Why does we react with loud voice when evidence is not enough and people in the third world are convicted anyway ?

Considering the Bali Judge has a record of 500 found guilty to 0 found not guilty... do you think he is being just?

The biggest problem with having professional judges is that they can be pressured to convict or not by government (or more shady groups).

How is it the professional Indonesian judges are giving sentences that are less then 3 years for conspiracy of terrorism. Either the evidence was not strong enough and Bashir should have got 0 time or he should be hanging from a gibbet and then feed to the pigs. The issue is that these professional judges can be pressured to give verdicts, a jury by his peers could have in all likely hood found him not guilty.

It is also easier for an individual with an agenda to convict all those of a type they don't like.

A jury is a check on the power of the Judiciary. The Judiciary is rarely democractically elected, yet they hold a lot of power in society. So for a democracy the jury is an easy way of injecting the democratic process into the Judicial process.

Yes, you can and you must. Laws do have a purpose. One of them is to protect the society from threats. These threats doesn't always understand they are threats. If they can be rehabilitated to understand that they are threats so they stop being threats, it's good. If not they have to be removed from the society. Actually US foreign policy is built on this concept........

If the jury (representing the people) cannot understand why the person is a threat then why should the person be convicted.

The larger threat is not a lack of 100% convictions. The largest threat is having a government that can prosecute without checks or balances.

[Proletariat]

Typical members here advocating appointing an anointed genius above giving power to the unwashed masses.

Why not just make the person with the highest IQ in each country King?

[bmolsson]

Typical members here advocating appointing an anointed genius above giving power to the unwashed masses.

Why not just make the person with the highest IQ in each country King?

Nah, then we wouldn't be able to elect our great movie stars president......

[A.Saturnus]

Typical members here advocating appointing an anointed genius above giving power to the unwashed masses.

Why not just make the person with the highest IQ in each country King?

No, I´m (and I think others as well) advocating giving power to the law. The judge has no power, only the law has.

A judge is not democratically elected.

Neither are policemen. They shouldn´t be elected because their role is a professional one. BTW, juries aren´t elected democratically as well.

[Soulforged]

The larger threat is not a lack of 100% convictions. The largest threat is having a government that can prosecute without checks or balances.

Well i already answered to this but here i go again: here, where there's 3 judges for every chamber, the judicial system is so separated of the rest that in theory the rest of the powers cannot touch them, of course in our country sometimes this doesn't happen, but this is due to corruption and not to the effectiveness of the model. So the judicial system always had an element of "police state". And i really like it that way. To the other questions i answered above.

[bmolsson]

Considering the Bali Judge has a record of 500 found guilty to 0 found not guilty... do you think he is being just?

If it's the same judge I am thinking of, then all those cases are drug cases. Indonesian law is rather simple there. You carry drugs, you are guilty. Can't really see how any jury could see that differently.

The biggest problem with having professional judges is that they can be pressured to convict or not by government (or more shady groups).

And that would not happen with a jury ?

How is it the professional Indonesian judges are giving sentences that are less then 3 years for conspiracy of terrorism. Either the evidence was not strong enough and Bashir should have got 0 time or he should be hanging from a gibbet and then feed to the pigs. The issue is that these professional judges can be pressured to give verdicts, a jury by his peers could have in all likely hood found him not guilty.

Do you know what he was convicted for at all ?

It is also easier for an individual with an agenda to convict all those of a type they don't like.

That is why you have higher courts.

A jury is a check on the power of the Judiciary. The Judiciary is rarely democractically elected, yet they hold a lot of power in society. So for a democracy the jury is an easy way of injecting the democratic process into the Judicial process.

A jury has nothing to do with democratic process. Neither have a legal process. Or do you really think that a referendum on guilt would be the ultimate just system ? Nothing by mob justice, our modern society have grown out of that, I hope....

If the jury (representing the people) cannot understand why the person is a threat then why should the person be convicted.

The larger threat is not a lack of 100% convictions. The largest threat is having a government that can prosecute without checks or balances.

The government is elected by the people, why would the government want to prosecute without checks and balances ? Don't you believe in the democratic process ?
The modern laws are a little bit more complex than they where 100 years ago.


Note: By the way, do you see DNA as a absolute evidence of guilt ? Do you believe it's unique ?

[Papewaio]

The government is elected by the people, why would the government want to prosecute without checks and balances ? Don't you believe in the democratic process ?
The modern laws are a little bit more complex than they where 100 years ago.


Note: By the way, do you see DNA as a absolute evidence of guilt ? Do you believe it's unique ?

No I don't believe in having an unchecked government. Part of the reason of the success of most democratic governments is the accountability of them, which the checks and balances help insure. Any person who gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Nor should a government elected by the people have free reign, they may have been elected on a few topical issues this does not give them absolute authority.

====

DNA evidence is not absolute.

a) Tiny chance that the sequence checked can be identical on two individuals
b) We shed DNA everywhere we go. Our skin which forms upto 90% of household dust. This dust can be blown hundreds of kilometers by wind or carried off by other individuals.
c) DNA like any other evidence (like drugs) can be planted by a third party.