Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Jury of Their Peers?

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 2:43:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

The idea is to eliminate bias. Selecting for specific people concentrates biases.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:03:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:01:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
we'd lose all our doctors and engineers if they were specifically selected for jury duty.

They actually try to eliminate these people anyways.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:21:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

I don't understand. What flaw in the existing system do you imagine would be remedied by your proposed system that wouldn't introduce new flaws?

Also, the entire point of this is because we can't expect a far trial by a jury of our betters. More intelligent =/= more moral. So, while we could, maybe, expect them to come to a more rational conclusion, based on the available evidence, what expectation do we have that they will act on that conclusion?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:23:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:21:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

I don't understand. What flaw in the existing system do you imagine would be remedied by your proposed system that wouldn't introduce new flaws?

Also, the entire point of this is because we can't expect a far trial by a jury of our betters. More intelligent =/= more moral. So, while we could, maybe, expect them to come to a more rational conclusion, based on the available evidence, what expectation do we have that they will act on that conclusion?

It was just a thought.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2012 3:26:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:23:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:21:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

I don't understand. What flaw in the existing system do you imagine would be remedied by your proposed system that wouldn't introduce new flaws?

Also, the entire point of this is because we can't expect a far trial by a jury of our betters. More intelligent =/= more moral. So, while we could, maybe, expect them to come to a more rational conclusion, based on the available evidence, what expectation do we have that they will act on that conclusion?

It was just a thought.

I just find it rather ironic that you reference the House of Lords when, as a country, it was trial and conviction by the House of Lords that drove us to revolution and create protections such as a trial by our peers.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 12:43:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/16/2012 3:26:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:23:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:21:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

I don't understand. What flaw in the existing system do you imagine would be remedied by your proposed system that wouldn't introduce new flaws?

Also, the entire point of this is because we can't expect a far trial by a jury of our betters. More intelligent =/= more moral. So, while we could, maybe, expect them to come to a more rational conclusion, based on the available evidence, what expectation do we have that they will act on that conclusion?

It was just a thought.

I just find it rather ironic that you reference the House of Lords when, as a country, it was trial and conviction by the House of Lords that drove us to revolution and create protections such as a trial by our peers.

...no it wasn't. The House of Commons convicted George I, which led the country to civil war/was a result of civil war.

And we didn't revolt over a conviction....
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 5:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 12:43:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:26:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:23:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:21:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

I don't understand. What flaw in the existing system do you imagine would be remedied by your proposed system that wouldn't introduce new flaws?

Also, the entire point of this is because we can't expect a far trial by a jury of our betters. More intelligent =/= more moral. So, while we could, maybe, expect them to come to a more rational conclusion, based on the available evidence, what expectation do we have that they will act on that conclusion?

It was just a thought.

I just find it rather ironic that you reference the House of Lords when, as a country, it was trial and conviction by the House of Lords that drove us to revolution and create protections such as a trial by our peers.

...no it wasn't. The House of Commons convicted George I, which led the country to civil war/was a result of civil war.

And we didn't revolt over a conviction....

...No, the other guy was right. When did we convict King George?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
K.GKevinGeary
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2012 6:20:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Your idea is pretty well put. You can probably develop a concrete testable statement on how two variables relate to one and other. X (competence level) in association to Y (Jury's decision). Its pretty much endless. Your idea reminds me of Plato's Apology due to the dumb voting the wisest man to death. I get your not stating that everyones dumb but when it comes to passing judgement that impacts someone's life tremendously it might be beneficial to society that the wise pass judgement. I heard talk about having a jury that is steady and employed to just be a jury. I am bit skeptical of that idea. (There was some talk after the Casey Anthony Trial about employed juries). If society can employ and measure the competence of each person on the jury (still randomly but making it harder to be on the jury), the jury could be better. Develop the idea it is well put.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 1:46:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/17/2012 5:21:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:43:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:26:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:23:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:21:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

I don't understand. What flaw in the existing system do you imagine would be remedied by your proposed system that wouldn't introduce new flaws?

Also, the entire point of this is because we can't expect a far trial by a jury of our betters. More intelligent =/= more moral. So, while we could, maybe, expect them to come to a more rational conclusion, based on the available evidence, what expectation do we have that they will act on that conclusion?

It was just a thought.

I just find it rather ironic that you reference the House of Lords when, as a country, it was trial and conviction by the House of Lords that drove us to revolution and create protections such as a trial by our peers.

...no it wasn't. The House of Commons convicted George I, which led the country to civil war/was a result of civil war.

And we didn't revolt over a conviction....

...No, the other guy was right. When did we convict King George?

Sorry, sorry. I fvcked up.

It was King Charles I who was convicted due to Commons actions.

Unless he's referencing something I'm unfamiliar with.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 2:03:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 1:46:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:21:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:43:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:26:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:23:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:21:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

I don't understand. What flaw in the existing system do you imagine would be remedied by your proposed system that wouldn't introduce new flaws?

Also, the entire point of this is because we can't expect a far trial by a jury of our betters. More intelligent =/= more moral. So, while we could, maybe, expect them to come to a more rational conclusion, based on the available evidence, what expectation do we have that they will act on that conclusion?

It was just a thought.

I just find it rather ironic that you reference the House of Lords when, as a country, it was trial and conviction by the House of Lords that drove us to revolution and create protections such as a trial by our peers.

...no it wasn't. The House of Commons convicted George I, which led the country to civil war/was a result of civil war.

And we didn't revolt over a conviction....

...No, the other guy was right. When did we convict King George?

Sorry, sorry. I fvcked up.

It was King Charles I who was convicted due to Commons actions.

Unless he's referencing something I'm unfamiliar with.

I'm speaking metaphorically, as there was no formal trial. However, the manner in which Parliament and the Crown treated the American Colonies was as if they decided we were guilty of some crime against which we could not defend ourselves.

Consider the following:

Declaratory Act (1766)
Despite having no representation in Parliament, they asserted they "had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America ... in all cases whatsoever"

Coercive Acts (1774)
In response to the Boston Tea Party, closed the port of Boston until reparations had been made, without giving the colonists and opportunity to defend themselves; brought the control of the Massachussets government under direct royal control, rather than locals.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2012 2:32:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/18/2012 2:03:41 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/18/2012 1:46:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/17/2012 5:21:30 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/17/2012 12:43:15 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:26:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:23:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/16/2012 3:21:09 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 7/16/2012 2:41:44 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
This is something I was thinking about last night.

I understand the idea of being tried by a jury of your peers--average people in your community to determine your guilt/not guilt. I understand, generally, the philosophical idea/philosophy behind it as well--part of a fair trial on your level, in your area, etc.

However, I'm curious as to whether it wouldn't make mo sense to instead of trying someone by MERELY a jury of their peers, but try them by a jury of their elite peers: meaning the most educated, intelligent, people. Think of it as being tried by people from the House of Lords versus the House of Commons is the best simplification. The best, most reasonable kind of people in our society.

Note: I'm not saying that commons aren't reasonable or educated. In fact, I'm not an elitist in the common sense at all. I was just wondering whether, if an accurate verdict is the goal, the most respectably intelligent members of society would be better suited as a jury.

What do you think?

I don't understand. What flaw in the existing system do you imagine would be remedied by your proposed system that wouldn't introduce new flaws?

Also, the entire point of this is because we can't expect a far trial by a jury of our betters. More intelligent =/= more moral. So, while we could, maybe, expect them to come to a more rational conclusion, based on the available evidence, what expectation do we have that they will act on that conclusion?

It was just a thought.

I just find it rather ironic that you reference the House of Lords when, as a country, it was trial and conviction by the House of Lords that drove us to revolution and create protections such as a trial by our peers.

...no it wasn't. The House of Commons convicted George I, which led the country to civil war/was a result of civil war.

And we didn't revolt over a conviction....

...No, the other guy was right. When did we convict King George?

Sorry, sorry. I fvcked up.

It was King Charles I who was convicted due to Commons actions.

Unless he's referencing something I'm unfamiliar with.

I'm speaking metaphorically, as there was no formal trial. However, the manner in which Parliament and the Crown treated the American Colonies was as if they decided we were guilty of some crime against which we could not defend ourselves.

Consider the following:

Declaratory Act (1766)
Despite having no representation in Parliament, they asserted they "had, hath, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America ... in all cases whatsoever"

Coercive Acts (1774)
In response to the Boston Tea Party, closed the port of Boston until reparations had been made, without giving the colonists and opportunity to defend themselves; brought the control of the Massachussets government under direct royal control, rather than locals.

You're equating things that aren't equal.

You're for one equating the past House of Lords with this one.

You're equating people deciding things for people who live far away from a jury of people from the area.

My reference to the House of Commons/Lords was an example of the KIND of people I'm talking about on juries. Not literally saying that the House of Lords would be a jury.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus