Judgement by jury

[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.