5 ms·
But democracy has absolutely nothing to do with the value of innocence, otherwise angry mobs would be effective systems for justice.
by 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 agoI 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.