|
|
Post by Shano on Aug 13, 2011 11:36:01 GMT -5
And while I definitely understand the issue with bribing a panel of judges, the disadvantages of the jury system are to me a bit too much (and bribing the jury is quite not unheard of anyway). This is why I definitely prefer the European (generally based on roman law) inquisitorial system. You have to convince the panel of judges there, who (are supposed to) have all the expertise in their field.
Again I acknowledge that both systems have their respective advantages and disadvantages.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Aug 13, 2011 18:15:04 GMT -5
Don't they sort of tell you how the system works when you get called for jury duty, though? I mean, you have to know on what basis you're supposed to be deciding this case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Aug 13, 2011 21:26:37 GMT -5
How do they determine if a juror is a "peer" of the accused?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kit Walker on Aug 13, 2011 21:55:09 GMT -5
How do they determine if a juror is a "peer" of the accused? I'm pretty sure "peer" in this case if interpreted as "non-government civilians". It's not a jury of Federal Agents, it's not a military tribunal, it's not a panel of federally appointed judges, it is a jury of regular folks just like you. I think. |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Aug 14, 2011 3:50:52 GMT -5
It goes back at least to the Magna Carta. Back in the day, it basically meant that if you were a lord, the jury would consist of lords. If you were a commoner, the jury would consist of fellow commoners. The US doesn't have that sort of class system, and "jury of your peers" or similar language doesn't actually appear in the constitution. However, we retain the phrase in common use. Our use of the term, however, is almost the opposite of the original meaning; a jury of your peers is to include as broad a spectrum of the population as possible, in terms of race, gender, and economic status, since we are all considered each other's peers.
|
|
