Judgement by jury

[Duke of Gloucester]

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 ?

These are examples of injustice, but I can't see what they have to do with juries. Most Western countries do not have juries,

Depends what you define as a feudal system. Just knittpicking from your side.

Associating the common law with the feudal system disparages it, so I thought is important to point out that it pre-dates the feudal system, having its roots in Anglo-Saxon England. The feudal system was imposed over the common law (and contributed to its developement) but you can't argue that it pre-dates it however you define the fuedal system. I know of no examples of the common law being used to persecute minorities, but can quote you an example of a jury preventing the persecution of a religous minority.

It is self evident that a person needs training to understand the law, but I am very troubled by the idea that you need to be a professional to decide facts, such as who is lying, who can be trusted etc.

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

This is the nub of our disagreement. I back the one-off amateurs because they are insulated from state pressure to come to a particular verdict. As Adrain says:

Nowadays, the primary function of judges and juries is to ensure that the individual is preotected against judicial abuses by 'the People'.

However, a Judiciary serves a different function than that of dispensing justice. Its function is to check injustice and to do so with an eye to the public interest.

Adrain, the distinction between dispensing justice and checking injustice is too subtle for me. Can you explain why these two things are not effectively the same.

Re OJ Simpson and the recent Dutch case, is not your argument here about secrecy and not the jury system, and in the end don't both cases come down to whether the evidence is convincing or not. Is the judge going to say anyting different from: "I was not convinced that this or that piece of evidence was conclusive"? Where we disagree is over who is best at making this decision, 12 amateurs or 1 (or 3 professionals).

[Adrian II]

Adrian, the distinction between dispensing justice and checking injustice is too subtle for me. Can you explain why these two things are not effectively the same.

No Judiciary would be able to shape a 'just society' even if it wanted to. All that a Judiciary does is see to it that the state ('the People') respects the established rules and values of society whilst upholding the public order. The notion that a Judiciary could or should dispense justice is an illusion.

Re OJ Simpson and the recent Dutch case, is not your argument here about secrecy and not the jury system, and in the end don't both cases come down to whether the evidence is convincing or not. Is the judge going to say anyting different from: "I was not convinced that this or that piece of evidence was conclusive"?

No, the difference is that in the Dutch case all the relevant considerations are available in the public domain. Indeed, our judges say a lot more than what you suggest. In complicated cases one hundred page verdicts are no rare exception. This is to ensure that the judge accounts for every syllable of his final verdict. It is this precise account that is lacking in jury verdicts.

Where we disagree is over who is best at making this decision, 12 amateurs or 1 (or 3 professionals).

No, that is not the point at all. What we disagree about is whether all considerations leading to a verdict should be presented to the public (Dutch system) or kept behind closed doors (jury system). I opt for the former.

N.B. Dutch judges who write shoddy verdicts will constantly see them overturned by higher courts until their entire prestige is down the drain and they are forced to resign from the bench.