4 ms·

But what would we do if all those legal and technical experts came up with a framework that the general population believed was obviously unfair? In the curren

by CPLX 6y ago

But what would we do if all those legal and technical experts came up with a framework that the general population believed was obviously unfair? In the current framework, nothing. They're built right into the system. It's a pretty core principal of government operating only by the consent of those governed.

joshuamorton 6y ago
> But what would we do if all those legal and technical experts came up with a framework that the general population believed was obviously unfair? Vote for new representatives to change the laws. Technically speaking, as a jurist you aren't supposed to make a decision based on fairness instead of the law, and if you state that you will, you will be removed from the jury or held in contempt. Jury nullification, which you're suggesting as a strategy, isn't intended to be legal, its just unpunishable.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Jury nullification, which you're suggesting as a strategy, isn't intended to be legal, its just unpunishable. It's ironic that the whole point of the jury system is to enable jury nullification, and yet those are the magic words that will immediately get you out of jury duty. I wish there was a simple checkmark on the jury summons form that says "I know what jury nullification is and intend to use it," it would save everyone a lot of time.
- CPLX 6y ago
  Unpublishable is a strange description for a concept that was intentionally made the core feature for the system. Having a jury means that political leaders can’t, on an ongoing basis, have courts make decisions that the general population disagrees with. That’s literally the point.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    Trying to figure out why we don't have a jury pool for the Supreme Court in that case.
mullingitover 6y ago
> But what would we do if all those legal and technical experts came up with a framework that the general population believed was obviously unfair? We have lots of issues in the US that some people feel are unfair, and we've been pretty successful approaching those problems through the democratic process rather than picking some randos off the street to decide them.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >We have lots of issues in the US that some people feel are unfair, and we've been pretty successful approaching those problems through the democratic process rather than picking some randos off the street to decide them. Err, the democratic process is about giving an equal voice called the vote to all randos off the street. (Not that it's implemented particuraly democratically in the US). Not to mention that the original Athenian Democracy did just that: used (alongiside voting) the election of random people off the streets as a counter-measure for representiveness.
  - mullingitover 6y ago
    > Err, the democratic process is about giving an equal voice called the vote to all randos off the street. (Not that it's implemented particuraly democratically in the US). The US system is designed to make randos off the street feel like they have an equal voice (so they don't revolt and can be blamed for the failings of government) while actually heavily insulating the country from legislating their wishes. Originally only one half of the bicameral legislature, and no other branches, were directly elected. Even now only one branch is directly elected. The Athenians were a human rights nightmare and their economy was based on human trafficking. Even if a tiny minority of the population had some say in the rule of law I wouldn't look to them as something to aspire to.

by CPLX 6y ago

joshuamorton 6y ago

> But what would we do if all those legal and technical experts came up with a framework that the general population believed was obviously unfair? Vote for new representatives to change the laws. Technically speaking, as a jurist you aren't supposed to make a decision based on fairness instead of the law, and if you state that you will, you will be removed from the jury or held in contempt. Jury nullification, which you're suggesting as a strategy, isn't intended to be legal, its just unpunishable.

mullingitover 6y ago
> Jury nullification, which you're suggesting as a strategy, isn't intended to be legal, its just unpunishable. It's ironic that the whole point of the jury system is to enable jury nullification, and yet those are the magic words that will immediately get you out of jury duty. I wish there was a simple checkmark on the jury summons form that says "I know what jury nullification is and intend to use it," it would save everyone a lot of time.
CPLX 6y ago
Unpublishable is a strange description for a concept that was intentionally made the core feature for the system. Having a jury means that political leaders can’t, on an ongoing basis, have courts make decisions that the general population disagrees with. That’s literally the point.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  Trying to figure out why we don't have a jury pool for the Supreme Court in that case.

mullingitover 6y ago

> But what would we do if all those legal and technical experts came up with a framework that the general population believed was obviously unfair? We have lots of issues in the US that some people feel are unfair, and we've been pretty successful approaching those problems through the democratic process rather than picking some randos off the street to decide them.

coldtea 6y ago
>We have lots of issues in the US that some people feel are unfair, and we've been pretty successful approaching those problems through the democratic process rather than picking some randos off the street to decide them. Err, the democratic process is about giving an equal voice called the vote to all randos off the street. (Not that it's implemented particuraly democratically in the US). Not to mention that the original Athenian Democracy did just that: used (alongiside voting) the election of random people off the streets as a counter-measure for representiveness.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > Err, the democratic process is about giving an equal voice called the vote to all randos off the street. (Not that it's implemented particuraly democratically in the US). The US system is designed to make randos off the street feel like they have an equal voice (so they don't revolt and can be blamed for the failings of government) while actually heavily insulating the country from legislating their wishes. Originally only one half of the bicameral legislature, and no other branches, were directly elected. Even now only one branch is directly elected. The Athenians were a human rights nightmare and their economy was based on human trafficking. Even if a tiny minority of the population had some say in the rule of law I wouldn't look to them as something to aspire to.