27 Dec 10
Recent debate about the jury system on another thread has led me to think about the following. In Britain and America criminal trials are decided by a jury of citizens selected at random from the electoral register, with jury service considered a civic duty.
I wonder what would happen if a similar model was applied to parliament and congress? Citizens would be selected at random to spend a short term as a lay congressman or lay member of parliament. This would apply to a small but significant proportion of congressmen and MPs - say, in the United States, one lay congressman per state, or in Britain, one lay member of parliament per every two counties (which would equate to a little over ten percent of congressional membership and a little under ten percent of British parliamentary membership).
What would be the effects of such a move?
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeYou'd have people in Parliament/Congress who wouldn't have the slightest idea of what their job is supposed to be, but would surely seek to address what they see as the concerns of the common people. Predictably these people would be the most parochial in their approach to debates.
Recent debate about the jury system on another thread has led me to think about the following. In Britain and America criminal trials are decided by a jury of citizens selected at random from the electoral register, with jury service considered a civic duty.
I wonder what would happen if a similar model was applied to parliament and congress? Citizens w ...[text shortened]... r ten percent of British parliamentary membership).
What would be the effects of such a move?
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeTeinosuke: In Britain and America criminal trials are decided by a jury of citizens selected at random from the electoral register, with jury service considered a civic duty.
Recent debate about the jury system on another thread has led me to think about the following. In Britain and America criminal trials are decided by a jury of citizens selected at random from the electoral register, with jury service considered a civic duty.
I wonder what would happen if a similar model was applied to parliament and congress? Citizens w ...[text shortened]... r ten percent of British parliamentary membership).
What would be the effects of such a move?
This is somewhat incorrect. The actual jury at a trial is not "selected at random" but is the result of the decisions of the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge. The panel itself is "randomly selected" (though how random the selection is has been disputed) but the actual composition of the final jury is not.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOne could argue they'd be less susceptible to the type of "bribery" most often used in the American political system i.e. the providing of cash for a politician's re-election contingent on his support of measures that financially benefit the giver.
Yes, of course. It's a problem you can overcome, I simply oversee greater possible issues in this system compared with career politicians.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by no1marauderBut surely we can all agree FPTP is ineffective?
One could argue they'd be less susceptible to the type of "bribery" most often used in the American political system i.e. the providing of cash for a politician's re-election contingent on his support of measures that financially benefit the giver.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeAs we've touched on before, we cannot always take the historical view of any aspect of societal concern as the correct one, but... in the US, the House and Senate were selected more on the basis of their station than anything else. While loathe to acknowledge or admit to any type of a ruling class, the thought was that 'the best of us' were most qualified to be the decision makers. Many elections since have witnessed the French Revolution-like backlash against the insiders, the Ivy Leaguers, the moneyed elite: think Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton who fought hard to down play any vestige of their ties to establishment while endeavoring equally hard to play up their 'common man' credibilities.
Recent debate about the jury system on another thread has led me to think about the following. In Britain and America criminal trials are decided by a jury of citizens selected at random from the electoral register, with jury service considered a civic duty.
I wonder what would happen if a similar model was applied to parliament and congress? Citizens w ...[text shortened]... r ten percent of British parliamentary membership).
What would be the effects of such a move?
As already noted herein, most jurors are woefully ignorant of their duties and responsibilities while simply sitting mute in a box simply listening to stories. Imagine the damage that would be caused by throwing them the keys to a Lamborghini!
27 Dec 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, I realised after I put up my original post that this was not correct as regards the US jury system. In Britain the selection process is random, so the twelve men and women who end up in the courtroom are chosen as if by lot, but the case's lawyers are given the opportunity to challenge the selection before the trial proceeds. However, such challenges are rare. Are they more common in the US?
This is somewhat incorrect. The actual jury at a trial is not "selected at random" but is the result of the decisions of the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge. The panel itself is "randomly selected" (though how random the selection is has been disputed) but the actual composition of the final jury is not.
In any case, that inaccuracy doesn't prevent discussion of the hypothesis I suggested.
27 Dec 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeI would say that pre-emptory challenges are used in every case and challenges for case in almost every case in the American system. Jury selection can take days or longer.
Yeah, I realised after I put up my original post that this was not correct as regards the US jury system. In Britain the selection process is random, so the twelve men and women who end up in the courtroom are chosen as if by lot, but the case's lawyers are given the opportunity to challenge the selection before the trial proceeds. However, such challenges ...[text shortened]... US?
In any case, that inaccuracy doesn't prevent discussion of the hypothesis I suggested.