3 ms·

This is completely dodging the (hard?) questions and deflecting to historical actors. Also, I didn't decide anything (and I doubt you did either). This is the

• raldi 12y ago
  What questions did you have in mind? P.S. Note that I'm not asserting that the current system is perfect. Just that we (again, as a society; not me and you specifically) decided long ago that the drawbacks of letting 12 schlubs decide a person's fate were exceeded by the drawbacks of letting only the well-educated do so.
  • jsprogrammer 12y ago
    >What questions did you have in mind? How about the 4-5 I already posted in the direct ancestors of this thread (e.g. the the one you originally responded to [but did not answer]).
    • raldi 12y ago
      > Do you start with the presupposition that juries are infallible? No; I answered that immediately in my first reply. > Surely their actions must leak information about their constitution? That's not actually a question, but even if the answer is yes, that's what I mean about juries being only the least-bad solution we've invented so far. > If a jury cannot follow (what is assumed to be) basic rules, then how can one be assured that they capably analyzed the facts and case issued to them and then appropriately applied matters of the law (written rules) to them? One can't. See previous answer.