Why jury trials are an antiquated idea

[Derec]

As Aristotle said: "Oligarchies have elections, Democracies have lotteries."

A jury is the only function of our government that is determined by a lottery: the genuine participation and exercise of power by randomly chosen citizens.

As long as our laws are made by oligarchs, who answer to special interests, not the people, juries are absolutely essential, as they are the only limit that ordinary citizens can apply to the oligarchs.

People elect the representatives that pass the laws. Also laws against murder are not some oligarchic conspiracy that needs to be reined in by "jury nullification". The problem with "jury nullification" is that it is arbitrary. It's all about whether the jury likes the perp.

Dare I ask what sort of totalitarian horror Derec would propose to replace juries with?

Most countries have moved away from traditional jury trials and either have judge trials or some sort of hybrid system without having become "totalitarian horrors". For example German courts use both professional and lay judges. The latter are different than jurors as they go through some training and hear a number of cases, not just one.

- - - Updated - - -

A jury is the worst system for a trial except for all the others tried so far.

Most other countries would tend to disagree.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You know, you were making quite a bit of sense until i noticed it was a Texas Jury. Then the trial result made more sense.

The Gun Enthusiasts have made this a country, esp. Texas, where we must work to preserve the right of any gun owner to kill someone for just about any reason.
It really is sad, but it is not a surprise.
And while i would agree that 'something should be done' it is not the jury model of courtroom proceedings. It's the expecations that anyone angry or afraid or offended or pushed around should have the right to pop off and fire away.

Yeah. This sounds like a case of jury nullification, although it's possible it's a case of overcharging. Sometimes the prosecutors aim high and don't leave the possibility of lesser charges open--and the jury does the right thing by refusing to convict on the too-high charge. This is clearly heat-of-the-moment, not per-meditated, if the prosecutor only offered murder one...

 

[Bronzeage]

You know, you were making quite a bit of sense until i noticed it was a Texas Jury. Then the trial result made more sense.

The Gun Enthusiasts have made this a country, esp. Texas, where we must work to preserve the right of any gun owner to kill someone for just about any reason.
It really is sad, but it is not a surprise.
And while i would agree that 'something should be done' it is not the jury model of courtroom proceedings. It's the expecations that anyone angry or afraid or offended or pushed around should have the right to pop off and fire away.

Yeah. This sounds like a case of jury nullification, although it's possible it's a case of overcharging. Sometimes the prosecutors aim high and don't leave the possibility of lesser charges open--and the jury does the right thing by refusing to convict on the too-high charge. This is clearly heat-of-the-moment, not per-meditated, if the prosecutor only offered murder one...

Let's just call this the perfect crime. There was no witness and no weapon. The only evidence is based on the circumstances and we know what they call that. A jury cannot convict based on the argument of "he must have done it, because there wasn't anyone else." All the man has to do is sit still and keep his mouth shut. Reasonable doubt will take care of the rest.

At least he didn't try to make up a story about the guy attacking him and claim self defense.

 

[credoconsolans]

The guy was obviously guilty and sympathy on the part of the jury let him get away with murder.

 

[Derec]

Yeah. This sounds like a case of jury nullification, although it's possible it's a case of overcharging. Sometimes the prosecutors aim high and don't leave the possibility of lesser charges open--and the jury does the right thing by refusing to convict on the too-high charge. This is clearly heat-of-the-moment, not per-meditated, if the prosecutor only offered murder one...

Let's just call this the perfect crime. There was no witness and no weapon. The only evidence is based on the circumstances and we know what they call that. A jury cannot convict based on the argument of "he must have done it, because there wasn't anyone else." All the man has to do is sit still and keep his mouth shut. Reasonable doubt will take care of the rest.

There have been people convicted with far less evidence.

At least he didn't try to make up a story about the guy attacking him and claim self defense.

Would have been difficult since the victim had passed out. In other words, he'd had to have been a woman for it to work (after all, in Georgia a woman successfully claimed "self defense" for shooting her unarmed boyfriend in the back).

 

[Bronzeage]

Let's just call this the perfect crime. There was no witness and no weapon. The only evidence is based on the circumstances and we know what they call that. A jury cannot convict based on the argument of "he must have done it, because there wasn't anyone else." All the man has to do is sit still and keep his mouth shut. Reasonable doubt will take care of the rest.

There have been people convicted with far less evidence.

At least he didn't try to make up a story about the guy attacking him and claim self defense.

Would have been difficult since the victim had passed out. In other words, he'd had to have been a woman for it to work (after all, in Georgia a woman successfully claimed "self defense" for shooting her unarmed boyfriend in the back).

If there was no witness to the murder, how do we know if he was passed out?

 

[laughing dog]

The guy was obviously guilty and sympathy on the part of the jury let him get away with murder.

Is that an echo of Sybrina Fulton I hear?

 

[laughing dog]

The prosecution's case must have been very weak if it took the jury less than 3 hours to unanimously find him not guilty.

 

[Derec]

The guy was obviously guilty and sympathy on the part of the jury let him get away with murder.

Is that an echo of Sybrina Fulton I hear?

No. Z acted in self defense (injuries, witness statements). The victim here was passed out so the murderer could not have acted in self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

The prosecution's case must have been very weak if it took the jury less than 3 hours to unanimously find him not guilty.

Or they decided a priori not to convict based on things other than objective facts of the case and waited 3 hours just to keep up appearances.

 

[Sarpedon]

People elect the representatives that pass the laws.

That's a very simplistic point of view. Representatives are not ordinary people, nor do they listen to ordinary people. They listen to donors and lobbyists. In order to become a representative, you need to be found acceptable by donors and party apparatchiks, and only then are you presented to the voters, who then have a choice between two or more people already vetted by the rich, powerful, and politically connected.

It amazes me that you can rail against jury trials as being a 'popularity contest' and then defend elections as being democratic, rather than oligarchic.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Is that an echo of Sybrina Fulton I hear?

No. Z acted in self defense (injuries, witness statements). The victim here was passed out so the murderer could not have acted in self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

The prosecution's case must have been very weak if it took the jury less than 3 hours to unanimously find him not guilty.

Or they decided a priori not to convict based on things other than objective facts of the case and waited 3 hours just to keep up appearances.

Z acted in offense until he started getting his ass kicked.

 

[laughing dog]

Is that an echo of Sybrina Fulton I hear?

No. Z acted in self defense (injuries, witness statements). The victim here was passed out so the murderer could not have acted in self defense.

No, it was the echo.

Or they decided a priori not to convict based on things other than objective facts of the case and waited 3 hours just to keep up appearances.

That is an interesting theory. Do you have any actual independent evidence or logical reasoning to support it?

 

[PyramidHead]

that is called jury nullification, and it is the law.

Yes, and it can be a good thing. For instance, we were just talking about Shaneen Allen who is facing major prison time for mistakenly taking a gun across state lines. The prosecutor in that case is just a complete ass. For her sake I hope the jurry says the law in this case is completely stupid.

Derec, yes jury trials suck. You got a better system figured out?

I imagine it would also be good in cases of possessing/dealing weed or shrooms.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The guy was obviously guilty and sympathy on the part of the jury let him get away with murder.

Is that an echo of Sybrina Fulton I hear?

Well, and this is TOTALLY COINCIDENTAL, but there is a belief, totally separate and apart from this thread, that juries tend to be overly sympathetic to women. not that that ever crossed anyone's mind.