Judgement by jury

[Papewaio]

So you do believe in the democratic process. Then you also believe that the laws written in the democratic process is good and should be enforced. And that is best done by a judge, educated in the laws to be enforced.

A jury finds the if they are or are not guilty.

A judge then decides the sentence or they can even suspend it. He writes up the account of the whys of the sentence at that point based on the evidence given and other factors. The jury is a judicial safeguard.

A judge is not democratically elected. Nor are they easy to get rid of. The problem is the level of professionalism can be found lacking in some of them. Falling asleep at trials being one of the more obvious problems.

[bmolsson]

A jury finds the if they are or are not guilty.

A judge then decides the sentence or they can even suspend it. He writes up the account of the whys of the sentence at that point based on the evidence given and other factors. The jury is a judicial safeguard.

A judge is not democratically elected. Nor are they easy to get rid of. The problem is the level of professionalism can be found lacking in some of them. Falling asleep at trials being one of the more obvious problems.

If a judge fails his duties, he is to be suspended or punished. Just like any other professionals there has to be an ethical committee. This committee can have elected people. There is nothing in my opinion that make me being treated more fairly by having a jury deciding if I am guilty or not.
Furthermore, are you saying that normal people would never fall asleep during a trial while a judge would ? I can't really see the relevance to be honest.

[Soulforged]

If a judge fails his duties, he is to be suspended or punished. Just like any other professionals there has to be an ethical committee. This committee can have elected people. There is nothing in my opinion that make me being treated more fairly by having a jury deciding if I am guilty or not.
Furthermore, are you saying that normal people would never fall asleep during a trial while a judge would ? I can't really see the relevance to be honest.

The judges are punished in exeptional cases that practically, due to level of study and knowledge, rarely happen in reality, one of these would be making analogy of a criminal law. In reality they've a kind of absolute power, being the supreme ruler the Supreme Court, wich sentences are practically laws by themselves. Though this in anyway makes the decitions biased or partial, this has nothing to do with that, but the real subject here is the separation of powers.

A jury finds the if they are or are not guilty.

Just that only is very difficult. Believe me.

A judge then decides the sentence or they can even suspend it. He writes up the account of the whys of the sentence at that point based on the evidence given and other factors. The jury is a judicial safeguard.

But that's exceptionally facultative of the judge, he cannot make it in every case, or can he? So the jury makes "whys" (arguments) when they really have not idea of what they're talking about? I asure you that not all the arguments are reduced to the facts, there're a great number that corresponds to the abstract analisys. To me the jury acts more like Pindar said, like the element of morality in the court, though i disagree with that conception, morality is a totally different thing from law (directum, derecho, the science as i explained before).

A judge is not democratically elected. Nor are they easy to get rid of. The problem is the level of professionalism can be found lacking in some of them. Falling asleep at trials being one of the more obvious problems.

The judge is not democratically elected because the same ones that know the flaws on the system know that if the judge is elected then he'll have to favor certain elite that supported and supports him. Well you're right they're not easy at all. I never saw a judge falling asleep here, most be a problem of the unic enviorament of Australy .

[Duke of Gloucester]

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.

In England and Wales the law has three sources, statutes passed by parliament, common law, which, I suppose is the same as "custom", and case law where judges interpretaion of statute and common law binds subsequent judges to behave in the same way. This is complicated: society and technology change, so new situations arise, language changes, new statutes overlap with old ones, new judgements are made; in order to understand all this, you need years of training. "Anyone with a minimal knowledge of the science will never know it...", I agree entirely. However in most cases the issues are those of fact, and not of law. In England and Wales juries never make decisions about law. They only make decisions about fact. If the proposed system in Argentina is that juries make legal decisions, then you are right to be against it.

They are not making decisions entirely on their own. The judge is there to guide them. He or she will say things like "If you believe such and such a thing you should find the defendent not guilty. If, on the other hand you believe such and such, you should find the defendant guilty." If the judge does not give correct direction, then this can be challenged on appeal. I suppose an argument could be made for alternatives to jury trial for cases where facts are very complicated and involved, perhaps fraud cases. However in nearly all cases, both the law and the factual issues are straightforward.

[Del Arroyo]

A judge in Oklahoma got busted for jerking off under the bench... they even said he sometimes used penis pumps during court proceedings.....

[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.

[Adrian II]

A judge in Oklahoma got busted for jerking off under the bench... they even said he sometimes used penis pumps during court proceedings.....

Imagine what those juries get up to behind closed doors..

[sharrukin]

If a judge fails his duties, he is to be suspended or punished. Just like any other professionals there has to be an ethical committee. This committee can have elected people.

What colour is the sky in your world?

Judicial accountability is a joke! Like lawyers, and doctors, judges are rarely held accountable for their actions, even when they become outrageous. Slightly more than a dozen federal judges and perhaps 20 state judges, have been removed from office in the history of the United States and I would be very much surprised if it was much different elsewhere.

[Proletariat]

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

I don't understand this. You could say the same of the jury.

[Soulforged]

In England and Wales the law has three sources, statutes passed by parliament, common law, which, I suppose is the same as "custom", and case law where judges interpretaion of statute and common law binds subsequent judges to behave in the same way. This is complicated: society and technology change, so new situations arise, language changes, new statutes overlap with old ones, new judgements are made; in order to understand all this, you need years of training. "Anyone with a minimal knowledge of the science will never know it...", I agree entirely. However in most cases the issues are those of fact, and not of law. In England and Wales juries never make decisions about law. They only make decisions about fact. If the proposed system in Argentina is that juries make legal decisions, then you are right to be against it.

They are not making decisions entirely on their own. The judge is there to guide them. He or she will say things like "If you believe such and such a thing you should find the defendent not guilty. If, on the other hand you believe such and such, you should find the defendant guilty." If the judge does not give correct direction, then this can be challenged on appeal. I suppose an argument could be made for alternatives to jury trial for cases where facts are very complicated and involved, perhaps fraud cases. However in nearly all cases, both the law and the factual issues are straightforward.

Yes i think i understand your position, but then this system is really archaic. Though it has administrative advantages, the truth is that every case is a mess of circumstances and facts that can only be seen by the expert. There's the case of that image of the two mans in black and white that can also be perceived as a jar, this one is very famous. But in science there's always one true perception not two, and if the jury has only the perception from the side of custom and morality the decisions can rarely be properly founded, though the conviction may achieve justice anyway, but if something lacks of form the content may get lost.

[Papewaio]

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

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?

[Papewaio]

But in science there's always one true perception not two

Science deals with models and facts. It also can have multiple perceptions that are correct.

[Proletariat]

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

Exactly what I said. Let's just take whoever had the highest GPA when earning a PHD in Poli Sci from whatever university happens to be the most prestigiously ranked in the country at the time.

The electorate is just a bunch of idiots that need to be led anyway, right guys?

[Soulforged]

Exactly what I said. Let's just take whoever had the highest GPA when earning a PHD in Poli Sci from whatever university happens to be the most prestigiously ranked in the country at the time.

The electorate is just a bunch of idiots that need to be led anyway, right guys?

The judicial system must be separate of all the political life (there're exceptions but little of concern to typical cases). Thus making it incorrect saying that the judge can be influenced by the policies, when in fact you put a jury for democratic policies reasons.
The electorate isn't just a bunch of idiots, the system considers them in this "democratic" system as numbers. The elites appeal to them every time that they want to be elected or at the end of the period so they can be reelected. To them you're just a number that can be tuned by lies and ideal proposes that will never achive reality. As the jury, the actual democratic system is just a bunch of formalities, nothing of real democratic content in it.

[Soulforged]

Science deals with models and facts. It also can have multiple perceptions that are correct.

Agree, but you need the right "instruments" to percieve the truth or truths.

[Papewaio]

Considering the lifestyles of citizens of democracies compared with others it ain't such a bad gig.

If there is a better performing system out there then show me...

[Papewaio]

Agree, but you need the right "instruments" to percieve the truth or truths.

Which more often then not is starting with the right brain and ideas.

[Soulforged]

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

Well i don't think that this democracy works any different. But,yes, why not leave at least the judicial system in a benevolent dictatorship? I don't see anything wrong.

[sharrukin]

Well i don't think that this democracy works any different. But,yes, why not leave at least the judicial system in a benevolent dictatorship? I don't see anything wrong.

I would have thought the 30,000 Desaparecidos (disappeared) in Argentina might suggest that benevolent dictatorships don't always stay that way. If you hand the law over to a any group, you also hand over the country. If they can make or break law as they choose, they are the government.

[Soulforged]

I would have thought the 30,000 Desaparecidos (disappeared) in Argentina might suggest that benevolent dictatorships don't always stay that way. If you hand the law over to a any group, you also hand over the country. If they can make or break law as they choose, they are the government.

They can make the law as they want, only a elite has real power in this democracy, the rest of us must satisfy ourselves with voting from time to time. And i didn't talk about a full government like dictatorship, i clearly said that the principle of dictatorship will do very well to stay in the judicial system. That dictatorship you're talking about was more executive (gobierno de facto, goverment by fact, not by right because they overrule the Constitution) than judicial, there were no formal trials in all the period, the executive power just worked by decrets and force. Btw the dissappeared are today on the numbers of +60000.

Oh now i see what benevolent dictatorship means in english, well i meant only dictatorship, totally impartial.

[Adrian II]

If there is a better performing system out there then show me...

Think: operation theatre.

Imagine twelve of your peers looking over the surgeon's shoulder and telling him whether to remove your appendix. Oh look, one just fell asleep -- apparently he doesn't care much and there is no reason he should care because he can not be held accountable for the outcome of the operation anyway. Fortunately, another has brought his old biology textbook from college so he can look up the key words in the index. 'Hold on, doctor... got it! A-p-p-e-n-d-i-x, "vermiform extension of large intestine". Now what is that knife you got there?'

Feel better yet?

[Soulforged]

I totally agree with you. In reality the "despotic" system functions better than the "democratic" one.

[Papewaio]

Think: operation theatre.

Imagine twelve of your peers looking over the surgeon's shoulder and telling him whether to remove your appendix. Oh look, one just fell asleep -- apparently he doesn't care much and there is no reason he should care because he can not be held accountable for the outcome of the operation anyway. Fortunately, another has brought his old biology textbook from college so he can look up the key words in the index. 'Hold on, doctor... got it! A-p-p-e-n-d-i-x, "vermiform extension of large intestine". Now what is that knife you got there?'

Feel better yet?

a) I was talking about government.

b) A lot of surgeons are refusing video cameras into operating theatres as they fear getting sued based on the video evidence oftheir screw ups... accountablity.

Also you are ignoring the defence and prosecution... your example is a bad stretch of a failing argument.

Compare the number and calibre of democracies that have emerged from the British system and then compare that to the number of those from the rest of the EU. After all isn't South America based on EU not British law?

[Soulforged]

Compare the number and calibre of democracies that have emerged from the British system and then compare that to the number of those from the rest of the EU. After all isn't South America based on EU not British law?

Yes, and it's theorically superior. The germans specially have a long tradition on law, and good one. But what did you mean by this?

I've not seen any convincing argument to leave the power of the law to the mob.

[Papewaio]

Simple take a look at all the ex British or ex US colonies and the US and Britain themselves.

Check how many have became reasonable democracies and then compare with what happened to the rest of the EU and its colonies.

[Soulforged]

Simple take a look at all the ex British or ex US colonies and the US and Britain themselves.

Check how many have became reasonable democracies and then compare with what happened to the rest of the EU and its colonies.

I don't see the connection between judicial system and what you seem to consider "reasonable democracy", when in fact there's no real connection between a current power and the citizens. Germany is a reasonable democracy, USA has death penalty until now (and some other irrational laws, based totally on morality, to me this appears to be an overconfidence in the common law system), French is too and Italians are very progresits. Britain and Australia are the only exceptions based on common law that i would call "reasonable democracies", but it seems that paranoia has taken it's toll in Britain in this times.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Imagine twelve of your peers looking over the surgeon's shoulder and telling him whether to remove your appendix. Oh look, one just fell asleep -- apparently he doesn't care much and there is no reason he should care because he can not be held accountable for the outcome of the operation anyway. Fortunately, another has brought his old biology textbook from college so he can look up the key words in the index. 'Hold on, doctor... got it! A-p-p-e-n-d-i-x, "vermiform extension of large intestine". Now what is that knife you got there?'

This situation would need to be twisted a long way to make it parallel to jury trials, but even here, the decision about whether to operate is made by an amateur: the patient, possibly the patient's relative. The doctor, an expert, explains his or her judgement about the case, but the final decision rests elsewhere.

[Papewaio]

Britain and Australia are the only exceptions based on common law that i would call "reasonable democracies", but it seems that paranoia has taken it's toll in Britain in this times.

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

[Adrian II]

a) I was talking about government.

Speaking of flawed comparisons.

Governments are (or should be) transparent and accountable to the people. The voters are the final judges.

Juries, even though they speak in the name of the people, are not transparent and can not be held accountable for their verdicts by the people or by the suspect in a particular case. Suspects are judged guilty or not guilty on the basis of secret deliberations and considerations. Therefore, as I said, the system is profoundly undemocratic.

Once again, let us take the most publicised jury case in human history, the O.J. Simpson case. Why, on what grounds and because of which lacunae in the prosecution's case, was Simpson acquitted? Is there a single American who knows the answer to that? Not even the jurors in that trial could tell, could they? They do not know what moved the next juror to vote guilty or not guilty in the end.

At the center of the jury system there is a black hole.

[Papewaio]

Would a transparent jury be the best synthesis?

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

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.