3 ms·
By definition eliminating juries is a move toward an authoritarian state. EDIT: Sorry if this came across "absolutist". I'm saying transferring power upward fr
by nyeah 10mo ago
By definition eliminating juries is a move toward an authoritarian state.
EDIT: Sorry if this came across "absolutist". I'm saying transferring power upward from the jury to the judge is a step towards centralizing power. That is true by inspection.
But I'm not saying that eliminating juries is, by itself, the whole slippery slope to losing freedom. I'm not even saying that having juries is necessary for freedom. I'm saying it's one safeguard. It's important where I live.
- AnonymousPlanet 10mo agoWould you mind quoting that definition? You might not be aware, but a lot of democratic and definitely not authoritarian countries don't make use of juries at all or only in a limited way.
- nyeah 10mo agoFor countries that have juries now, the definition is so obvious that maybe it's "under the radar". It goes like this: Take power away from the people on the jury. Give that power to a judge. It's more centralized. I guess I could say "by parsing the original statement" rather than "by definition." I didn't say that juries/no juries is a test, by itself, for authoritarianism. It's not. For countries that do fine without juries, apparently the trade-off of giving power to the judge is working fine. Given everything else in the whole system. But the rest of us don't have that whole system.