|
OwlFancier posted:I'd be alright with that. Seriously? The idea of a volunteer jury is one of the worst things I have head in a long time. Like someone else said imagine the selection bias that would result. Basically imagine the sort of person that likes the tipping system because of the power it gives the person over the server-those are the sorts of people that would choose the juror path. It would be an rear end in a top hat magnet. Also requiring civil service is a terrible idea in general, there's no need our justification for it at all. The jury system isn't perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than the suggestions in this thread.
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:12 |
|
|
It's funny- one of the biggest complaints in the police thread is that people (correctly) identify the relationship between prosecutor and police as a major issue that creates an unfair system. A professional jury would extend that issue to the jurors themselves. Bribery would become a hell of a lot easier- it's much easier to bribe over a long period of time while the juror/prosecutor form a work relationship. It's much easier to hide the bribes, and so on. Or what if you require juror school- who controls the curriculum and what sort of jurors would that produce? To expand upon the idea of selection bias- this is a term used in statistics that gets a problem where your sample becomes homogeneous and non-representative. A homogeneous sample is exactly what you don't want when it comes to juries- a random sample is much more likely to produce fair results than one which is self-selected. At least with a random sample of 10 people you are much more likely to get some that are smart, some that are against tough-on-crime policies and so on. It makes the prosecutors job significantly harder: all the defense lawyer needs to do is convince one person, a prosecutor needs to convince all 10. Which type of jury makes it a lot easier to convince everyone the same thing? A self selecting homogeneous jury. If you are looking to fix the system, the way to go is to ensure a more heterogeneous jury- so make it much harder for people to get around serving. Make it much harder for companies to punish employees for serving. Make sure the compensation is adequate so that serving is not a financial burden and poor people can serve. Do literally anything other than making it a professional job, there are few ideas worst than that. OwlFancier posted:As opposed to the current legal and governmental practice which is presumably not crewed by assholes? Completely and totally wrong, sorry. Think for a second. Why is it so hard to get the prosecutor to try a cop? Extend that idea to the whole jury. OwlFancier posted:What makes you think those are exclusive groups? Punitive justice enjoys a great deal of popular support. Exactly, you are much more likely to find one person who disagrees with punitive justice in a random sample of 10 than a self selected sample of 10. tsa fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
What is there to elaborate? I cannot think of an easier way to make juries more tough-on-crime than making it a literal job that attracts exactly those sorts of people. Why on earth would intelligent, thoughtful people choose that line of work?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 20:43
|
|