3 ms·
I think the intent is to have people "relying on legal experts to provide legal information". What often happens is "bastardizing legal experts' explanations to
by ckozlowski 11y ago
I think the intent is to have people "relying on legal experts to provide legal information". What often happens is "bastardizing legal experts' explanations to fit your own views". I suspect there's a fear that trying to apply the law on one's own leads to the latter happening more. But one could argue that it happens anyways, as you point out.
I wouldn't argue the absence of bias, we seem to be in agreement there, and I think that's the real point of the article. A lot of the arguments on this thread seem to be aimed at the jury system in general. In my opinion, it's not a fault of the jury system, but a fault of people. The jury system, and the instructions given (that we're debating now) are meant to try and minimize that, but they're far from perfect.
The question then becomes, "how do we best get jurors the information they need, while preserving their impartiality?" And I think that's a hard thing to do.
- ethbro 11y agoI think a start would be to have a truly impartial legal consultation system that jurors could avail themselves of at any point. The responses would be given with a minimum of contextual information about the case necessary to answer the question. In practice, the judge is supposed to serve this role, no? But I think it's readily apparent from the variances in judge activism that judges are people too. In hearing all the details about the case they can't help but form an opinion and are in a position to act on that opinion to varying degrees should they so choose.
- JoeAltmaier 11y agoJuries are weird. Supposed to inject mercy into the system, right? They are your 'peers' and supposed to know better than the lawyers about your situation. Deliberately not experts in law, and not supposed to be. I'm not sure 'impartiality' and legal information are what Juries are about.