07-02-2013, 10:38 AM
I hear you, Tiki, and I agree. The system isn't perfect, never will be.
I understand that there are often mistakes and injustices. I don't think there's any way to avoid those, though they can be minimized with good judges and strong processes. Maybe with more predictable juries/deciders too? IDK...
If we had trial by judges only, that might take out some of the subjectivity that comes with a jury of our peers. But, the different view points and collaboration has its merits in terms of determining justice too. IMO.
Professional juries is another option. They would likely understand the laws more precisely, but I can envision some downsides to this option as well.
We've got a peer jury in this case. I'm interested to see the remainder of the evidence and hear the verdict. I've also become more interested in post-trial juror interviews recently. Looking forward to those.
I understand that there are often mistakes and injustices. I don't think there's any way to avoid those, though they can be minimized with good judges and strong processes. Maybe with more predictable juries/deciders too? IDK...
If we had trial by judges only, that might take out some of the subjectivity that comes with a jury of our peers. But, the different view points and collaboration has its merits in terms of determining justice too. IMO.
Professional juries is another option. They would likely understand the laws more precisely, but I can envision some downsides to this option as well.
We've got a peer jury in this case. I'm interested to see the remainder of the evidence and hear the verdict. I've also become more interested in post-trial juror interviews recently. Looking forward to those.