(Mod’s note: I split this into a thread of its own. sN)
Whats the purpose of jury duty? Why doesnt the judge just decide the verdict himself? Wouldnt it be more productive to have a judge- someone who knows the philosophy of law extremely well- make this decision himself instead of a bunch of random civilians?
Whats the purpose of jury duty?
I propose that you do not ask that question until you ask and answer the question “what is the purpose of a jury”. With that sorted out, you can then ask about compelling people to be jurors.
Why doesnt the judge just decide the verdict himself? Wouldnt it be more productive to have a judge- someone who knows the philosophy of law extremely well- make this decision himself instead of a bunch of random civilians?
The question isn’t whether it’s “productive”, but rather, is it worse, same or better as a means of doing what needs to be done. What needs to be done is look coldly and dispassionately at the facts of the case, and look at what the law proscribes to decide whether the person did it.
Juries originate from Germanic tribal custom; the general method of doing this is to leave the matter in the hands of wise or qualified people. As I understand the Norwegian system, judges ~ magistrates make the fact-and-law findings; then, if you want to appeal, I think there is a jury (I’ll go find out more in a couple of weeks, yippee). BTW a judge can dismiss a case with prejudice which amounts to a not guilty verdict by a juror.
It is provably unnecessary to have a jury, given how widespread judge-trials are in free nations. The ostensive purpose is to get a decision by multiple unprejudiced people, the assumption being that a judge, who is an employee of the government, would be incapable of impartiality so could not be trusted to be fair. But the same would hold even moreso of government empoyment by any juror, who do not receive extensive training in law and the idea of objective evaluation.
I propose that you do not ask that question until you ask and answer the question “what is the purpose of a jury”. With that sorted out, you can then ask about compelling people to be jurors.The question isn’t whether it’s “productive”, but rather, is it worse, same or better as a means of doing what needs to be done. What needs to be done is look coldly and dispassionately at the facts of the case, and look at what the law proscribes to decide whether the person did it.
Exactly. I think Trascinski discussed this in a past issue of TIA, specifically relating to the reasons for legislative forums such as the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Ostensibly, forums are hedges, they are less corruptible, and give reason a better chance of prevailing since the act of convincing others is best suited to rational discourse. It is not a guarantee, and certainly there are all sorts of anti-reason tactics used in forums (philibusters, party intimidation, etc), however, on average, reasonable men of varied interests and backgrounds are best persuaded by reasonable arguments, even if a minority of their members are corruptible.
A judge might be more efficient, but this assumes that you have already assured his rationality, which in reality is not true. A forum is a social structure that helps assure rationality.
Juries also have (though most judges would prefer them not to know about it) the power of nullification. A jury, reaching the conclusion that a defendant is guilty of violating some such criminal law or other (for example) can still return a not guilty verdict and effectively say that the law is unjust, at least in specific instances. This can be a pretty useful stopgap against governmental power.
-Q
A judge might be more efficient, but this assumes that you have already assured his rationality, which in reality is not true. A forum is a social structure that helps assure rationality.
Ah! You’ve pointed out to me that I left out an important fact in the jury/judge difference. Namely, “justice by judge” does not necessarily mean “justice by 1 judge”. I understand that in Europe it is most common for there to be a panel of 3 judges. I’ve proposed having trained, professional jurors as the actually ideal system, though it’s unlikely in the US since we are so emotionally attached to the misguided belief that a random collection of simple people on the streets will somehow protect us from the oppression of the state. In fact, for protection against state misuse of power you don’t want the ordinary Joe, you want people who have a confident grasp of law and fact, which isn’t abundant in the general population.
I understand that in Europe it is most common for there to be a panel of 3 judges.
I think this system would be better than what we have now because having all the people who decide the verdict would have an extensive knowledge of law and how to be objective.
I’ve proposed having trained, professional jurors as the actually ideal system…
This would be their full-time job then, right? Instead of pulling random people out of their jobs and possibly creating a burden on certain companies for their absence, the government would always have a jury without forcing others to do it, and this jury would also be much more qualified for the job. Sounds like a sound idea.
It’s important to remember that in the US, juries are not supposed to decide matters of law. That job is exclusively the judge’s. Juries are supposed to determine the facts - which facts are true and which are false. The ideal role of the jury is not one that really requires a great deal of law. The system isn’t ideal, though, so there’s a lot of bleed-through.
-Q
It’s important to remember that in the US, juries are not supposed to decide matters of law. That job is exclusively the judge’s. Juries are supposed to determine the facts - which facts are true and which are false.
What we would need is an objective way to relate facts to conclusions like guilt and innocence. What’s the big deal, then? Well, 18 USC 1001 (1979 version) said “[w]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully . . . makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements . . . shall be fined . . . .”. Suppose then that a person makes a statement which they know to be false to an employer, but they do not know that the statement will eventually fall into the hands of the US government. The problem is that the jury is not supposed to just evaluate the statements “he made a false statement” and “he knew he made a false statement”, they also have to decide legal questions such as whether this is “in a matter in the jurisdiction of a dept. or agency of the US”, as well as whether it matters whether he knew this was a “federal case”. I think trials could be vastly cleaner if they involved separate ‘fact-finding’ and ‘conclusion-drawing’ stages. It is when untrained people get involved in the latter part – as they always are in our system – that there are problems.
I was going to reply how choosing “a random collection of simple people on the streets” (hehe) is probably done because one is supposed to be tried by a jury of one’s peers. But then I realized that the right to be tried by a jury, if I am not mistaken, is not actually stated in the Sixth Amendment or anywhere else in the U.S. Constitution. Where did this idea actually come from?
Is this notion as a right even reasonable? It does not even seem to be upheld in practice. The phrase “jury of one’s peers” suggests that one would be tried by a collection of acquiantences or individuals in the same socioeconomic class, region and/or occupation. However, when CEOs are defendants, the jury is rarely packed with other CEOs.
Art.3 §2 - “The trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State whtere the Crimes shall have been committed; but when not comitted within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”
Ed: missed a space
Where did this idea actually come from?
Hrealgorth. King Ethelred made it part of his legal system, and in the Magna Carta, the particular language is codified (“unless by legal judgement of his peers”). Since the concept of “peer” is meaningless, the idea of “jury of peers” is also meaningless, and we could just speak of “jury”. Historically, I believe it mean that a peasant would not be tried by a tribunal of bishops.
It is provably unnecessary to have a jury, given how widespread judge-trials are in free nations. The ostensive purpose is to get a decision by multiple unprejudiced people, the assumption being that a judge, who is an employee of the government, would be incapable of impartiality so could not be trusted to be fair. But the same would hold even moreso of government empoyment by any juror, who do not receive extensive training in law and the idea of objective evaluation.
So youre saying the type of jury system we have now is pointless because the majority of the jurors dont have proper training to decide a verdict in court. And even if a certain judge doesnt look at the facts objectively, the jurors- from lack of training- wont either. But the chances of a judge deciding objectively is much greater because he knows the job better(from experience and training), so I think we should just rely on a judge(s), instead of bring in a subpar council. Or else have an extensively trained jury(your previous idea you mentioned).
So youre saying the type of jury system we have now is pointless because the majority of the jurors dont have proper training to decide a verdict in court.
No, I did not argue that it is pointless. It is dysfunctional, though. Jurors lack an identifiable epistemology.
But the chances of a judge deciding objectively is much greater because he knows the job better(from experience and training), so I think we should just rely on a judge(s), instead of bring in a subpar council. Or else have an extensively trained jury(your previous idea you mentioned).
Yes, but the 1-person deciding paper is a bad idea as well, so doing all of these cases in front of a panel of 3 judges could get expense, with the current system where judges are an elite set of specially selected attorneys.