Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Permalink for comment 545863
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-06-03
You're right, in principal.
Unfortunately, the one thing that jury trials are very good at defending against is corruption and institutional unfairness.
Juries are not perfect, by any means, but without a judicial system that has public engagement, and can be trusted by even the type of person who makes up a usual jury, it's hard to be able to rely on in to be fair.
In this case, I would argue against a jury trial, the matters being decided are too abstract* for untrained people to appreciate, but for normal cases, jury trials are like democracy.. shit, but less shit than the alternatives.
* legal abstractions, not conceptual abstractions