3 ms·
> What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself? The check on the legal system is appealing to the higher co
by Pet_Ant 3y ago
> What is the point of a jury in your opinion, if not to act as a check on the legal system itself?
The check on the legal system is appealing to the higher courts. They can strike down laws that are against the constitution. Trials aren't referendums.
> If all we want is a list of the current laws as written and someone to compare evidence against it as a checklist, why bother adding potential inaccuracies by asking a jury of people who aren't trained in the law?
To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders. Especially as the deciders may come from a certain section of society (eg upper-class educated, and thus may unduly disregard the poor) they may have incentives or biases or connections that may influence their impartiality of their evaluation.
- javajosh 3y agoHey, we were having a similar convo on a different sub-thread and in one comment I addressed these concerns: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35817197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35817197
- _heimdall 3y ago(related to the thread linked by a sibling post as well) > To avoid the consolidation of power in the hands of a few deciders Without jury nullification, I'm not quite sure how a jury actually avoids this. If the model is that the jury is tasked specifically and exclusively with listening to the specific laws deemed relevant by the lawyers, hear the evidence, and determine whether the combination of the two justify the charges then an unskilled jury is a risk. A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination. Without giving the jury the responsibility to deviate from what may technically have been a crime, why are they there? Do they really have a better skillet to determine whether the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the law(a) were broken?
- Pet_Ant 3y ago> A seasoned judge would have a better ability to parse the case law and evidence to make this determination. In many places the accused has the right to request a trial by judge. This can be done if, for example, the charges are so shocking that the accused feels that a juror cannot be trusted to be impartial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial
- _heimdall 3y agoI appreciate you talking the time to share your thoughts here, by the way. This is a tricky subject and one that I've seen devolve into really unhelpful arguments, I'm genuinely curious to learn more about how other people view the problems in our legal system and how they think it should work