5 ms·

The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as my pharmacist without any training

The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. No matter their expertise I wouldn’t want the construction worker working as my pharmacist without any training. Yet we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law.

elcaminocomplex 7y ago
> The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.
- thawaway1837 7y ago
  Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case. Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.
  - elcaminocomplex 7y ago
    Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement. The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.
    - thawaway1837 7y ago
      The lack of legal training is exactly the issue at hand. Juror selection isn’t about qualifications. However, it does give both sides an opportunity to eliminate vested or deeply unqualified interests that may be biased against them. With a judge you have no such option.
      - slowmovintarget 7y ago
        Except for appeal. If a judge gets overturned enough on appeal, they can rightly be said to be unreliable. Which means, if they're elected to the position, their opponent can site how many times they got overturned as a legitimate reason to think they're bad at their job. All of this functions well... unless the electorate is uneducated or misled, and apathetic. That's the real problem in this case. People are winning popularity contests, because the only thing middle and high school taught most of the electorate was that you should be popular. It isn't true everywhere. Reputation and reputation systems can and do function well. But they require a functional press, and an interested public.
lisper 7y ago
> we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law Yes, that's what democracy is, for better or worse: the power of the state is ultimately vested in the people, regardless of training, background, gender, skin color, etc. etc. Restricting power to those who are trained in law, or any other narrowly defined group, is called oligarchy. It generally has good outcomes for the oligarchs and those who are close to them, not so much for everyone else.
- tomnipotent 7y ago
  > Yes, that's what democracy is No, it's not. It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Might as well let any random of the street be a doctor without training if that wasn't the case. Non-legally trained people still participate through the jury system, and more importantly in the House where laws are created in the first place.
  - lisper 7y ago
    > It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Manifestly not. If it were reasonable to expect this, then the founders would have written it into the Constitution, or the People would have changed the law in order to require it. The former didn't happen, and the latter hasn't happened. It may seem reasonable to you, but the whole point of democracy is that the law is not based on what seems reasonable to one person, only on what seems reasonable to the majority. And in this case, requiring judges be lawyers clearly doesn't seem reasonable to the majority, or things would be different.
    - detaro 7y ago
      No, it does not mean that it seems unreasonable to the majority. Just that it isn't important enough to the majority to effectively influence policy. Laws do not perfectly mirror what the overall population thinks would be best.
    - 7y ago

elcaminocomplex 7y ago

> The point is pharmacists have 0 legal training. Sounds a lot like 1/12th of a jury.

thawaway1837 7y ago
Every jury trial has a legally trained (hopefully) judge to assist the jury with the legal aspects of the case. Jury trials also have jury selection processes that allow lawyers from both sides to eliminate any poorly qualified jurors.
- elcaminocomplex 7y ago
  Judges have minimal training in the procedures of the court. Some are attorneys which gives them more familiarity with law and process, but as far as I know that’s not a requirement. The jury selection process has nothing to do with qualifications of jurors. The prosecutors are primarily trying to eliminate people they think will be sympathetic and the defense is primarily looking to eliminate people they think might biased against their client.
  - thawaway1837 7y ago
    The lack of legal training is exactly the issue at hand. Juror selection isn’t about qualifications. However, it does give both sides an opportunity to eliminate vested or deeply unqualified interests that may be biased against them. With a judge you have no such option.
    - slowmovintarget 7y ago
      Except for appeal. If a judge gets overturned enough on appeal, they can rightly be said to be unreliable. Which means, if they're elected to the position, their opponent can site how many times they got overturned as a legitimate reason to think they're bad at their job. All of this functions well... unless the electorate is uneducated or misled, and apathetic. That's the real problem in this case. People are winning popularity contests, because the only thing middle and high school taught most of the electorate was that you should be popular. It isn't true everywhere. Reputation and reputation systems can and do function well. But they require a functional press, and an interested public.

lisper 7y ago

> we’re ok with giving essentially the entire power of the state to people with no training or experience in law Yes, that's what democracy is, for better or worse: the power of the state is ultimately vested in the people, regardless of training, background, gender, skin color, etc. etc. Restricting power to those who are trained in law, or any other narrowly defined group, is called oligarchy. It generally has good outcomes for the oligarchs and those who are close to them, not so much for everyone else.

tomnipotent 7y ago
> Yes, that's what democracy is No, it's not. It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Might as well let any random of the street be a doctor without training if that wasn't the case. Non-legally trained people still participate through the jury system, and more importantly in the House where laws are created in the first place.
- lisper 7y ago
  > It's perfectly reasonable in our democracy to expect judges to be trained in law in order to effectively do their jobs. Manifestly not. If it were reasonable to expect this, then the founders would have written it into the Constitution, or the People would have changed the law in order to require it. The former didn't happen, and the latter hasn't happened. It may seem reasonable to you, but the whole point of democracy is that the law is not based on what seems reasonable to one person, only on what seems reasonable to the majority. And in this case, requiring judges be lawyers clearly doesn't seem reasonable to the majority, or things would be different.
  - detaro 7y ago
    No, it does not mean that it seems unreasonable to the majority. Just that it isn't important enough to the majority to effectively influence policy. Laws do not perfectly mirror what the overall population thinks would be best.
  - 7y ago