3 ms·

No, I don't believe so; the whole point of a jury is to verify that a single authority figure's decision to imprison someone is not invalid. If a judge wants s

No, I don't believe so; the whole point of a jury is to verify that a single authority figure's decision to imprison someone is not invalid. If a judge wants someone imprisoned for a valid legal reason, they should be able to get a jury of that person's peers to agree. That's what prevents our judiciary from becoming arbitrary tool of oppression.

smsm42 7y ago
> the whole point of a jury is to verify that a single authority figure's decision to imprison someone is not invalid. Juries never decided questions of authority and validity of judicial decisions. That's just not how juries work in common law. > If a judge wants someone imprisoned for a valid legal reason, they should be able to get a jury of that person's peers to agree. That may be your ideal picture, but again that's not how common law system works, and also not how it can work - if somebody would just refuse to comply with judicial orders, and you'd require a new jury trial each time one needs to be compelled to appear in hearing, answer a question, comply with a subpoena, etc. then you won't be able to enforce any decision and any judicial proceedings would be impossible as it would produce a fractal tree of sub-proceedings for every action, and any hostile actor would be able to bog down any proceedings by just refusing to comply with every judicial action. In actuality, there are enforcement actions in common law systems that can be performed without a jury trial. Jury trial is only necessary for conviction of a crime.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Fair enough, but I still believe that imprisonment absent a conviction or pretrial flight risk should not be allowed. I hope that in the future, we will see these sorts of situations like we see debtor's prisons today. Another abhorrent example which shows where this leads: journalists can be unilaterally detained for not giving up their sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/reporter-jailed-after-refusing-to-name-source.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/reporter-jailed-...

smsm42 7y ago

> the whole point of a jury is to verify that a single authority figure's decision to imprison someone is not invalid. Juries never decided questions of authority and validity of judicial decisions. That's just not how juries work in common law. > If a judge wants someone imprisoned for a valid legal reason, they should be able to get a jury of that person's peers to agree. That may be your ideal picture, but again that's not how common law system works, and also not how it can work - if somebody would just refuse to comply with judicial orders, and you'd require a new jury trial each time one needs to be compelled to appear in hearing, answer a question, comply with a subpoena, etc. then you won't be able to enforce any decision and any judicial proceedings would be impossible as it would produce a fractal tree of sub-proceedings for every action, and any hostile actor would be able to bog down any proceedings by just refusing to comply with every judicial action. In actuality, there are enforcement actions in common law systems that can be performed without a jury trial. Jury trial is only necessary for conviction of a crime.

leggomylibro 7y ago
Fair enough, but I still believe that imprisonment absent a conviction or pretrial flight risk should not be allowed. I hope that in the future, we will see these sorts of situations like we see debtor's prisons today. Another abhorrent example which shows where this leads: journalists can be unilaterally detained for not giving up their sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/reporter-jailed-after-refusing-to-name-source.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/reporter-jailed-...