07 Nov 05
no1marauder:
I would like to debate the merits of the jury system v. "a panel of trained jurists" in deciding criminal cases seperate and distinct from our discussion of the Inquistion. I will post a thread in Debates after I have had a chance to think more about the merits vis-a-vis the two systems and the arguments and counter-arguments for each.
Just thought I'd start a thread to get things rolling.
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerI haven't had time to collect my thoughts in a scholarly manner on this issue, sorry. If you could give me some information on what you think a jurist only system should have, that would help me out. I'd be particulary interested in the composition of the panel and how the jurists would be selected (civil service? political appointees? elections? etc. etc.).
no1marauder:
[b]I would like to debate the merits of the jury system v. "a panel of trained jurists" in deciding criminal cases seperate and distinct from our discussion of the Inquistion. I will post a thread in Debates after I have had a chance to think more about the merits vis-a-vis the two systems and the arguments and counter-arguments for each.
Just thought I'd start a thread to get things rolling.[/b]
08 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell I ain't one of dem fancy yankee lawyers or nuttin, but my "shooting from the hip" answer is no. Too much potential for corruption in my opinion. If police departments, judges, prosecutors, and politicians of all stripes are capable of being "influenced" then professional jurists certainly would be.
no1marauder:
[b]I would like to debate the merits of the jury system v. "a panel of trained jurists" in deciding criminal cases seperate and distinct from our discussion of the Inquistion. I will post a thread in Debates after I have had a chance to think more about the merits vis-a-vis the two systems and the arguments and counter-arguments for each.
Just thought I'd start a thread to get things rolling.[/b]
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by wibYou could randomly sample from a wide pool of professional jurists across the nation. This would reduce the potential for corruption.
Well I ain't one of dem fancy yankee lawyers or nuttin, but my "shooting from the hip" answer is no. Too much potential for corruption in my opinion. If police departments, judges, prosecutors, and politicians of all stripes are capable of being "influenced" then professional jurists certainly would be.
08 Nov 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeTrue. Good point. That would probably help the situation. I still think the potential for jury tampering is higher than the current way though. It just seems that people in positions of power have a hard time keeping their hands to themselves when a little tampering could help their case. Especially when governments or corporations are involved.
You could randomly sample from a wide pool of professional jurists across the nation. This would reduce the potential for corruption.
I'd also like to find a way to prevent pro jurists from seeing the same prosecutors and defenders. People can be subtly influenced by almost anything. A lawyers appearance, attractiveness, personality, a little wink and a nod, or whatever. I would think the more times a jurist winds up deciding cases being prosecuted or defended by the same attorneys they would be more inclined to judge the person on trial a certain way. I don't know, but it certainly seems likely considering human nature.
09 Nov 05
Originally posted by wibYou're probably right. The debate reminds of the issue of whether government should take the form of an aristocracy or a democracy. You could argue, as Plato did, that the will of the foolish majority is likely to be inferior to the will of the wise minority. On the other hand, every initially wise minority, drunk on power, seems to wind up screwing the foolish majority to further its own ends. Hence, democracy is the worst system of government, except for all the others. Similarly, a jury of peers may be the worst of form of jury, except for all the others.
True. Good point. That would probably help the situation. I still think the potential for jury tampering is higher than the current way though. It just seems that people in positions of power have a hard time keeping their hands to themselves when a little tampering could help their case. Especially when governments or corporations are involved.
I'd als ...[text shortened]... on trial a certain way. I don't know, but it certainly seems likely considering human nature.
10 Nov 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNot sure what you mean by "composition of the panel".
I haven't had time to collect my thoughts in a scholarly manner on this issue, sorry. If you could give me some information on what you think a jurist only system should have, that would help me out. I'd be particulary interested in the composition of the panel and how the jurists would be selected (civil service? political appointees? elections? etc. etc.).
I am not in favour of the judiciary being selected by political appointment or elections - though the legislative body should have some degree of veto power over appointments. I am also not in favour of life-long appointments; I feel appointments should have a fixed term (say 5-7 years).
The jurists I have in mind would function more like judges in civil cases or bench trials.
10 Nov 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeA wise minority can be put in check by representatives of the foolish majority - but without the foolish majority actually being involved in things beyond their expertise.
You're probably right. The debate reminds of the issue of whether government should take the form of an aristocracy or a democracy. You could argue, as Plato did, that the will of the foolish majority is likely to be inferior to the will of the wise minority. On the other hand, every initially wise minority, drunk on power, seems to wind up screwing th ...[text shortened]... others. Similarly, a jury of peers may be the worst of form of jury, except for all the others.
10 Nov 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerStating the obvious, LH. Question is how to elect that wise minority & since the foolish ones presumably elect them, well, that kind of gives the whole process a poke in the eye doesn't it.
A wise minority can be put in check by representatives of the foolish majority - but without the foolish majority actually being involved in things beyond their expertise.
10 Nov 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think that would be simple - you don't "elect" the wise minority at all. You let them be selected through a rigorous testing and/or interviewing process.
Stating the obvious, LH. Question is how to elect that wise minority & since the foolish ones presumably elect them, well, that kind of gives the whole process a poke in the eye doesn't it.
10 Nov 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammer"Composition of the Panel" - How many? One or more? Would verdicts have to be unanimous?
Not sure what you mean by "composition of the panel".
I am not in favour of the judiciary being selected by political appointment or elections - though the legislative body should have some degree of veto power over appointments. I am also not in favour of life-long appointments; I feel appointments should have a fixed term (say 5-7 years).
The jurists I have in mind would function more like judges in civil cases or bench trials.
A jury is a fact-finding body. Why do you believe it requires "expertise" to reason and determine what the facts are? Doesn't everyone do that everyday? Your whole argument smacks of elitism and letting our betters decide our fate.
EDIT: In most US civil trials, there is a right to trial by jury.
13 Nov 05
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touched_By_An_Angel
"The series finale shows Monica, who is up for promotion, defending Zack, an innocent drifter accused of blowing up a school full of children. The prosecutor is actually the Devil, played by David Ogden Stiers. Despite Monica's best efforts, Zack is convicted.
Visiting him in the prison, Monica offers herself to be his guardian angel for the rest of his life, protecting him from the dangers of the federal prison.
Later the citizens find out the truth: it was the prosecutor who blew up the school and framed Zack. Monica makes the citizens see that there's still hope to rebuild the life in the town and helps them to free themselves of the anger.
Before Zach can be sent to jail, however, he disappears. Monica then finds out that Zack was actually Jesus. Defending Him was a test, and she succeeds: according to His words, "There's no greater love than to give your life away for someone else." This is a strong and powerful Gospel message. Monica is finally promoted.
"