4 ms·

It’s terrifying watching Europeans attack the jury system. I’ve no idea why anyone would trust government officials to have your best interest at heart. They

It’s terrifying watching Europeans attack the jury system. I’ve no idea why anyone would trust government officials to have your best interest at heart. They already are backed by the monopoly on violence, such a system is just putting you at their mercy. A jury of twelve is democratic and those people can put themselves in your shoes.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
> A jury of twelve is democratic Is it? One obstinate person can upend the whole process. > and those people can put themselves in your shoes Unless you happen to not be of the same demographic as the majority of pool the jury is drawing from. I know, I know, "Well, what do you suggest?". I'm not sure, but I don't think that the jury system is democratic, nor do I think it guarantees that you're going to have people who are empathetic.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > One obstinate person can upend the whole process Sure. We’re dealing with life and fundamental freedoms. This fundamentally comes down to the value of innocence.
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    But democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the value of innocence, otherwise angry mobs would be effective systems for justice.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the value of innocence, otherwise angry mobs would be effective systems for justice Juries are democratic in that they devolve power to a body of citizens, not the government. The unanimity requirement is a check on the mob, alongside various court procedures and the appeals process.
      - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        I suppose, in the same way that picking a random citizen to create every new law would be democratic, but what does democracy have to do with the value of innocence, as you initially argued? In a jury it's the non-guilty voting minority that rules, and I'm fairly certain that the tyranny of the minority is largely considered undemocratic.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > what does democracy have to do with the value of innocence The jury is the democratic organ. The value of innocence is what motivates the undemocratic check of a unanimity requirement. You complained about one person upending the system. That’s the cost of valuing innocence. > the tyranny of the minority is largely considered undemocratic Yes, supermajority requirements are not perfectly democratic. Nobody argued juries are perfect democracies. Just that they’re more democratic than systems in which a judge decides everything. The value of innocence is technically orthogonal; you could instruct a judge to bias one way or another. But that’s structurally guaranteed by a jury in a way it cannot with bureaucrats, even a panel of them.
autoexec 3y ago
Jury nullification is what makes juries so important to me. It means that people can refuse to be held to laws they don't support.
edflsafoiewq 3y ago
A lynch mob is also democratic.

SketchySeaBeast 3y ago

> A jury of twelve is democratic Is it? One obstinate person can upend the whole process. > and those people can put themselves in your shoes Unless you happen to not be of the same demographic as the majority of pool the jury is drawing from. I know, I know, "Well, what do you suggest?". I'm not sure, but I don't think that the jury system is democratic, nor do I think it guarantees that you're going to have people who are empathetic.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> One obstinate person can upend the whole process Sure. We’re dealing with life and fundamental freedoms. This fundamentally comes down to the value of innocence.
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  But democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the value of innocence, otherwise angry mobs would be effective systems for justice.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the value of innocence, otherwise angry mobs would be effective systems for justice Juries are democratic in that they devolve power to a body of citizens, not the government. The unanimity requirement is a check on the mob, alongside various court procedures and the appeals process.
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      I suppose, in the same way that picking a random citizen to create every new law would be democratic, but what does democracy have to do with the value of innocence, as you initially argued? In a jury it's the non-guilty voting minority that rules, and I'm fairly certain that the tyranny of the minority is largely considered undemocratic.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > what does democracy have to do with the value of innocence The jury is the democratic organ. The value of innocence is what motivates the undemocratic check of a unanimity requirement. You complained about one person upending the system. That’s the cost of valuing innocence. > the tyranny of the minority is largely considered undemocratic Yes, supermajority requirements are not perfectly democratic. Nobody argued juries are perfect democracies. Just that they’re more democratic than systems in which a judge decides everything. The value of innocence is technically orthogonal; you could instruct a judge to bias one way or another. But that’s structurally guaranteed by a jury in a way it cannot with bureaucrats, even a panel of them.

autoexec 3y ago

Jury nullification is what makes juries so important to me. It means that people can refuse to be held to laws they don't support.

edflsafoiewq 3y ago

A lynch mob is also democratic.