3 ms·

> Peers are supposed to know you, your character, and your history. I don't think so. It's one thing to say that juries should be made of private citizens dra

• PeterisP 10y ago
  They are just as supposed to know the victim, their character, and their history. There's no reason to suppose that a "close peer" jury would favor the defendant, it's just as likely to be the other way around.
  • dpark 10y ago
    On what is the claim that the jury is supposed to know any party based on? Edit: To be clear, I agree with your premise that knowing the defendant does not necessarily bias a jury in favor of the defendant. I don't think there's any reason to assume the jury should have any knowledge of anyone, though. In fact if you do, you'll probably get removed from the jury.
• afthonos 10y ago
  Note that each level you've selected makes it more likely that they're sympathetic to you. Nation: shared culture. State: shared local culture. Town: shared understanding of what's considered acceptable here. There's of course a balance to be struck, and mobs will turn on people in an instant anyway. I'm merely saying that "peers" did not originally mean "random fellow humans"; it implied a level of connection above that. Personally, though, I think we've idealized the "impartial" jury too much—mostly because I don't believe there's such a thing.
  • dpark 10y ago
    > Note that each level you've selected makes it more likely that they're sympathetic to you. Nation: shared culture. State: shared local culture. Town: shared understanding of what's considered acceptable here Is that true? What if everyone in your town thinks you're kind of a jerk?