6 ms·

> Anything other than random citizens would necessitate a full time profession of juror and would thus render members of this profession employees of the state

by Aaargh20318 8y ago

> Anything other than random citizens would necessitate a full time profession of juror and would thus render members of this profession employees of the state in some capacity. Why have jurors at all ? Over here in the Netherlands people are judged by ... judges (what's in a name).

cimmanom 8y ago
Because at the time the US split from England, there were myriad concerns about judges being influenced by authorities to convict innocent people for political (or personal) reasons.
- mcguire 8y ago
  Because the judges and the authorities were the same, small minority, group of people.
candiodari 8y ago
> Why have jurors at all ? Over here in the Netherlands people are judged by ... judges (what's in a name). Because it limits the power of the state. The state, in the US, does not have absolute power to convict anyone of anything. In the Netherlands, the state does have that power. That means you have exactly zero chance against a corrupt complaint against you. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/11/20/onschuldig-en-veroordeeld-zie-dan-maar-eens-vrij-te-komen-5381805-a1532735 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/11/20/onschuldig-en-veroordee... In practice, the police and prosecutor in the Netherlands are both rewarded financially and have an internal culture that glorifies getting convictions. Needless to say, this means they often successfully prosecute innocents, knowing full well what they're doing. So I guess you can just decide for yourself. Do you trust the state ? People like to answer in the affirmative, even when boatloads of evidence is available that sometimes significant parts of the state, including the Dutch state, isn't even corrupt, but outright criminal for malevolent reasons (meaning police trying to get innocents convicted out of spite, or revenge, has happened more than a few times). Jury trials provide some (imperfect) measure of protection against such abuses.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Because it limits the power of the state. The state, in the US, does not have absolute power to convict anyone of anything. The state has for all intents and purposes unlimited resources to pile on charges, cover up exonerating evidence, they can legally lie to a suspect (“we found a witness you might as well confess”), they can strike jurors who would be more sympathetic to believing that police can be corrupt, etc. The defense doesn’t have an unlimited budget to hire experts, get evidence independently tested, etc. If you are poor and/or minority, the state can and will railroad you and the jury that holds your life in thier hands won’t be of your peers. Do you think that a cherry picked jury will really be that concerned if some poor Black kid gets locked up for life?
  - candiodari 8y ago
    > If you are poor and/or minority, the state can and will railroad you and the jury that holds your life in thier hands won’t be of your peers. Do you think that a cherry picked jury will really be that concerned if some poor Black kid gets locked up for life? I did say it's an imperfection measure of protection against that. But frankly, the court is just not going to take you seriously unless it's clear that you will appeal any decision you don't agree with it. Sorry but ... that's how the world works. Still, the alternative in force in Europe does not seem better, in fact it seems significantly worse. If you watch videos of judges in the Netherlands I assure you, first, the prosecutor is essentially the same, and second the judges ... to say that they are arrogant, unsympathetic and frankly assholes is a serious understatement of reality. Prosecutors are rewarded based on convictions, like in the US. I think this video, even though the source is a bit ... gmrbl (I DO NOT agree with 99% this website posts) ... But this is the reaction of Jaap Smit, judge and vicepresident of the Amsterdam "fast" court, to a camera: https://youtu.be/grW-nVrAWvM?t=18s https://youtu.be/grW-nVrAWvM?t=18s You can tell what sort of person he is, no ? They apparently filed a complaint ... and surprise nothing happened.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  Wrongful convictions happen all the time with jury trials in the USA. The police and prosecutors in the USA are also rewarded and have a culture that glorifies convictions.
moftz 8y ago
There was a case in the US where two judges were getting kickbacks for sending kids to a specific detention center for offenses as trivial as mocking an assistant principal on Myspace or trespassing in a vacant building. There's no jury in a juvenile court anyway but this is a case of a judge using their position of power to line their pockets at the expense of the futures of those kids. Not every judge is a good person but at least your lawyer can help pick the jury for you so some of the jurors might be more understanding of your accused crime and the circumstances.
- toomanybeersies 8y ago
  I think that corrupt judges is a separate issue to whether a judge employed by the state cam be impartial. It's also possible to bribe jurors to get off a conviction. Possibly easier than bribing a judge. All classes of people are corruptible.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    You'd have to bribe 12 jurors to guarantee a conviction for a single case. Bribe one judge, and you control hundreds of cases.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      This leads to an obvious question: should anyone have the right to know who the jury is? After all, if you don’t know who they are, you can’t bribe them or blackmail them. Same argument applies to the judge. One-way-glass might be a work of fiction, but video cameras are not.
      - gowld 8y ago
        How do you guarantee a trial by jury, if you don't have to prove to the defendant that the jury exists?
        apetresc 8y ago
IIAOPSW 8y ago
So you have a jury of one and its a state employee just like I said.

cimmanom 8y ago

Because at the time the US split from England, there were myriad concerns about judges being influenced by authorities to convict innocent people for political (or personal) reasons.

mcguire 8y ago
Because the judges and the authorities were the same, small minority, group of people.

candiodari 8y ago

> Why have jurors at all ? Over here in the Netherlands people are judged by ... judges (what's in a name). Because it limits the power of the state. The state, in the US, does not have absolute power to convict anyone of anything. In the Netherlands, the state does have that power. That means you have exactly zero chance against a corrupt complaint against you. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/11/20/onschuldig-en-veroordeeld-zie-dan-maar-eens-vrij-te-komen-5381805-a1532735 https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2016/11/20/onschuldig-en-veroordee... In practice, the police and prosecutor in the Netherlands are both rewarded financially and have an internal culture that glorifies getting convictions. Needless to say, this means they often successfully prosecute innocents, knowing full well what they're doing. So I guess you can just decide for yourself. Do you trust the state ? People like to answer in the affirmative, even when boatloads of evidence is available that sometimes significant parts of the state, including the Dutch state, isn't even corrupt, but outright criminal for malevolent reasons (meaning police trying to get innocents convicted out of spite, or revenge, has happened more than a few times). Jury trials provide some (imperfect) measure of protection against such abuses.

scarface74 8y ago
Because it limits the power of the state. The state, in the US, does not have absolute power to convict anyone of anything. The state has for all intents and purposes unlimited resources to pile on charges, cover up exonerating evidence, they can legally lie to a suspect (“we found a witness you might as well confess”), they can strike jurors who would be more sympathetic to believing that police can be corrupt, etc. The defense doesn’t have an unlimited budget to hire experts, get evidence independently tested, etc. If you are poor and/or minority, the state can and will railroad you and the jury that holds your life in thier hands won’t be of your peers. Do you think that a cherry picked jury will really be that concerned if some poor Black kid gets locked up for life?
- candiodari 8y ago
  > If you are poor and/or minority, the state can and will railroad you and the jury that holds your life in thier hands won’t be of your peers. Do you think that a cherry picked jury will really be that concerned if some poor Black kid gets locked up for life? I did say it's an imperfection measure of protection against that. But frankly, the court is just not going to take you seriously unless it's clear that you will appeal any decision you don't agree with it. Sorry but ... that's how the world works. Still, the alternative in force in Europe does not seem better, in fact it seems significantly worse. If you watch videos of judges in the Netherlands I assure you, first, the prosecutor is essentially the same, and second the judges ... to say that they are arrogant, unsympathetic and frankly assholes is a serious understatement of reality. Prosecutors are rewarded based on convictions, like in the US. I think this video, even though the source is a bit ... gmrbl (I DO NOT agree with 99% this website posts) ... But this is the reaction of Jaap Smit, judge and vicepresident of the Amsterdam "fast" court, to a camera: https://youtu.be/grW-nVrAWvM?t=18s https://youtu.be/grW-nVrAWvM?t=18s You can tell what sort of person he is, no ? They apparently filed a complaint ... and surprise nothing happened.
toomanybeersies 8y ago
Wrongful convictions happen all the time with jury trials in the USA. The police and prosecutors in the USA are also rewarded and have a culture that glorifies convictions.

moftz 8y ago

There was a case in the US where two judges were getting kickbacks for sending kids to a specific detention center for offenses as trivial as mocking an assistant principal on Myspace or trespassing in a vacant building. There's no jury in a juvenile court anyway but this is a case of a judge using their position of power to line their pockets at the expense of the futures of those kids. Not every judge is a good person but at least your lawyer can help pick the jury for you so some of the jurors might be more understanding of your accused crime and the circumstances.

toomanybeersies 8y ago
I think that corrupt judges is a separate issue to whether a judge employed by the state cam be impartial. It's also possible to bribe jurors to get off a conviction. Possibly easier than bribing a judge. All classes of people are corruptible.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  You'd have to bribe 12 jurors to guarantee a conviction for a single case. Bribe one judge, and you control hundreds of cases.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    This leads to an obvious question: should anyone have the right to know who the jury is? After all, if you don’t know who they are, you can’t bribe them or blackmail them. Same argument applies to the judge. One-way-glass might be a work of fiction, but video cameras are not.
    - gowld 8y ago
      How do you guarantee a trial by jury, if you don't have to prove to the defendant that the jury exists?
      - apetresc 8y ago

IIAOPSW 8y ago

So you have a jury of one and its a state employee just like I said.