2 ms·

Comment you’re replying to never said trial by jury was an American innovation. Simply that it was pretty unique at the time to have that right enshrined in the

by aksss 5y ago

Comment you’re replying to never said trial by jury was an American innovation. Simply that it was pretty unique at the time to have that right enshrined in the country’s constitution, and that the right is not a requisite feature of democracies. For instance, the right to a jury trial for serious crimes in England has existed longer than England could seriously call itself a democracy.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> Simply that it was pretty unique at the time to have that right enshrined in the country’s constitution Having a set, non-nebulous constitution at all, was unique but the claim that trial by jury “ a pretty unique thing about the American system of checks and balances” is false, it was a well-established basic right in the common law system and the deprivation of it in the colonial administration was a fundamental grievance of the American independence movement not because they had some novel ideas about basic right but because they sought it as a deprivation of the rights they saw themselves entitled to in the British common law tradition.
- aksss 5y ago
  No, you introduced the question of innovation, which was never contained in my statement. Now you are limiting the statement to a comparison with England proper (for they did in fact suppress the right in their colonies), which was also never in my statement, even implicitly. These are called strawmen. How was France doing with TbJ? How about Japan? China? Russia? Shall we go through the list of countries in the late 18th century to do this by hand? Tally them up and see how many had a guaranteed right to TbJ for criminal offenses by their citizens? No, the statement I made holds, and you’ll find that by looking at how other countries adjudicated criminal offenses at the time (not just England). Guaranteed TbJ was the exception, not the rule.

by aksss 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Simply that it was pretty unique at the time to have that right enshrined in the country’s constitution Having a set, non-nebulous constitution at all, was unique but the claim that trial by jury “ a pretty unique thing about the American system of checks and balances” is false, it was a well-established basic right in the common law system and the deprivation of it in the colonial administration was a fundamental grievance of the American independence movement not because they had some novel ideas about basic right but because they sought it as a deprivation of the rights they saw themselves entitled to in the British common law tradition.

aksss 5y ago
No, you introduced the question of innovation, which was never contained in my statement. Now you are limiting the statement to a comparison with England proper (for they did in fact suppress the right in their colonies), which was also never in my statement, even implicitly. These are called strawmen. How was France doing with TbJ? How about Japan? China? Russia? Shall we go through the list of countries in the late 18th century to do this by hand? Tally them up and see how many had a guaranteed right to TbJ for criminal offenses by their citizens? No, the statement I made holds, and you’ll find that by looking at how other countries adjudicated criminal offenses at the time (not just England). Guaranteed TbJ was the exception, not the rule.