Anyone who works in law will tell you that justice is pretty thin to the ground.
I think you’ve misconstrued my position though. I’m not saying the current system is fine, merely that the role of jurors is to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against them, and the role of the judge is to determine the appropriate punishment, and that this separation of duties is the best structure we have to mitigate corruption.
I’m not saying there’s no corruption, merely that allowing a jury to determine whether a defendant should be punished despite their guilt is tantamount to corruption. If a jury can determine penalties then the whole court process is basically a popularity contest.
A few months ago, I would’ve told you that I’m holding to the belief that might doesn’t make right and that no one is above the law. However, recent events have demonstrated that more than half the voting public prefer a system where the law does not apply to wealthy nor powerful people. I’m astonished, but apparently my views are not represented amongst the population generally. It seems that in the current era there is no denying that there is a class of people to whom the law does not apply.
Ok we are in line as far as our thinking goes…now chew on this…60 percent of Americans can’t read above a 6th grade level. Those are your peers. Do you really want someone that struggles with The Hunger Games to decide a life or death case?
I just hope I’m never put to trial. Facts simply don’t matter any more and theater wins.
Again, it’s not a great system but it’s the best available.
I think the problem of “idiot jurors” is mitigated somewhat in that a unanimous verdict is required. A hung jury is a better outcome than an incorrect finding.
I pretty much agree with you on all points.
Anyone who works in law will tell you that justice is pretty thin to the ground.
I think you’ve misconstrued my position though. I’m not saying the current system is fine, merely that the role of jurors is to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against them, and the role of the judge is to determine the appropriate punishment, and that this separation of duties is the best structure we have to mitigate corruption.
I’m not saying there’s no corruption, merely that allowing a jury to determine whether a defendant should be punished despite their guilt is tantamount to corruption. If a jury can determine penalties then the whole court process is basically a popularity contest.
A few months ago, I would’ve told you that I’m holding to the belief that might doesn’t make right and that no one is above the law. However, recent events have demonstrated that more than half the voting public prefer a system where the law does not apply to wealthy nor powerful people. I’m astonished, but apparently my views are not represented amongst the population generally. It seems that in the current era there is no denying that there is a class of people to whom the law does not apply.
Ok we are in line as far as our thinking goes…now chew on this…60 percent of Americans can’t read above a 6th grade level. Those are your peers. Do you really want someone that struggles with The Hunger Games to decide a life or death case?
I just hope I’m never put to trial. Facts simply don’t matter any more and theater wins.
Again, it’s not a great system but it’s the best available.
I think the problem of “idiot jurors” is mitigated somewhat in that a unanimous verdict is required. A hung jury is a better outcome than an incorrect finding.