3 ms·
> jury is that it is of your peers, which implies that to some extent you do know them and they know you Does not follow. I'm not aware of any context where th
by lmkg 8y ago
> jury is that it is of your peers, which implies that to some extent you do know them and they know you
Does not follow. I'm not aware of any context where that's part of what "peer" means.
> A jury of perfect strangers unrelated to you is not constitutional.
Generally speaking, if you're not a perfect stranger, you're kicked off a jury for conflict of interest.
A "jury of one's peers" means people in the same social class as you, i.e. a jury that is not biased against you. The word "peer" is a hold-over from English society with more pronounced social classes, and is meant strictly as a counterbalance against those social classes.
Note that the Consitution itself doesn't actually contain the word "peer," but rather uses the phrase "impartial jury."
- hammock 8y agoIf they are in the same social class as you, then you know that about them. Not sure how that refutes my argument.
- bilbo0s 8y agoJust to be evenhanded here, I suspect that in most criminal cases the jurors are likely NOT in the same social class as the defendant. That said, having jurors be people you know seems a little unfair too. So a jury of perfect strangers seems greatly unfair in the postulated context of asymmetric privacy, and a jury of friends seems unfair as it's possible they would let you off regardless of evidence. Problem is, asymmetric privacy is a reality today. So, yeah, tough problem.