4 ms·

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 inno

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.