Do you have this "jury of peers" thing as well? Cause that's such a scary notion in the US legal system, I'm happy we do without (in the Netherlands). It's such

Do you have this "jury of peers" thing as well? Cause that's such a scary notion in the US legal system, I'm happy we do without (in the Netherlands). It's such an obvious part of the problem. Yes it's nice they're peers or something, but they're pretty useless considering how easily they get wooed by any expert speaking with a sound of authority and the fact that they're a 100 times more familiar with the CSI:Fairytales on TV than they are with the actual justice system. The big difference is that a professional working in this system will actually get a notion of how trustworthy tea-leaf readings actually are when determining objective true facts (or something similarly scientific, like polygraphs--they don't seem to get much use outside the US either, weird). Well, unless of course the incentives for the professional are wrong, and again it's this "jury of peers" idea that gets in the way, the incentives become about populism and convincing the jury, about the show. Not what's really real, but who can produce the biggest superstimulus of hyperreality. Thanks a lot, Baudrillard :-(