This is unbelievable

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
At least people think it's important to have their say, so a system where people feel they have no influence is going to be less effective due to demoralizing the people.

But you want to make it so the "retards" have no influence on the legal system which you seemingly admit will lessen the effectiveness of said system.

As I said, your policy prescriptions regarding that system are self-contradictory.

Originally posted by no1marauder
But you want to make it so the "retards" have no influence on the legal system which you seemingly admit will lessen the effectiveness of said system.

As I said, your policy prescriptions regarding that system are self-contradictory.

But in the case of the justice system, the people not being so happy with the system does not have comparable adverse side-effects.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
But in the case of the justice system, the people not being so happy with the system does not have comparable adverse side-effects.

I'd be curious to see what empirical support you have for such a bland assertion.
A representative poll from 2004, showed that 75% of Americans agreed with the idea that they'd rather have their own case decided by a jury than a judge. http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/juryreport.pdf

Surely ignoring such strong public opinions about such a long standing tradition of central importance would undermine faith in overall governance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd be curious to see what empirical support you have for such a bland assertion.
A representative poll from 2004, showed that 75% of Americans agreed with the idea that they'd rather have their own case decided by a jury than a judge. http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/juryreport.pdf

Surely ignoring such strong public opinions about such a long standing tradition of central importance would undermine faith in overall governance.

Perhaps... but on the long term such disapproval would waver, and the increased effectiveness of the legal system also has a positive impact on the confidence of people in the legal system. I personally don't know anyone who favours a jury system.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Perhaps... but on the long term such disapproval would waver, and the increased effectiveness of the legal system also has a positive impact on the confidence of people in the legal system. I personally don't know anyone who favours a jury system.

I asked for some empirical support for such a proposition; do you feel that your beliefs and the beliefs of people you know qualifies?

I have no reason to believe that abolition of the jury system would increase the "effectiveness" of the legal system; certainly you've failed to offer any evidence or logical reason why it would. In fact, it would seem it would make the system more vulnerable to corruption and bias (one judge is easier to bribe or influence then an entire jury pool).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I personally don't know anyone who favours a jury system.

Friends and family members of mine who've done jury service in the UK in the last few years commented that the experience had strengthened their faith in the jury system. In particular, they were impressed by how seriously their fellow jurors took the task, and by the fact that the judge and courtroom officials gave guidance as to key legal issues without directing the jurors' judgements.

Anecdotal evidence, I know, but there we are.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I asked for some empirical support for such a proposition; do you feel that your beliefs and the beliefs of people you know qualifies?

I have no reason to believe that abolition of the jury system would increase the "effectiveness" of the legal system; certainly you've failed to offer any evidence or logical reason why it would. In fact ...[text shortened]... to corruption and bias (one judge is easier to bribe or influence then an entire jury pool).

Do you think OJ would have been sentenced if he had been judged without a jury?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_con_in_soc_ins_leg_sys-confidence-social-institutions-legal-system

This poll shows confidence people have in the legal system. Although this is influenced by a multitude of factors, countries with an emphasis on juries (UK, US, Belgium) do have relatively low confidence scores.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Do you think OJ would have been sentenced if he had been judged without a jury?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_con_in_soc_ins_leg_sys-confidence-social-institutions-legal-system

This poll shows confidence people have in the legal system. Although this is influenced by a multitude of factors, countries with an emphasis on juries (UK, US, Belgium) do have relatively low confidence scores.

I dunno; do you think that Judge Freisler or the Inquistion tended to reach proper decisions?

Of course jury trials are often inconvenient to those in power, Russia recently decided to scrap them in certain cases because:

Recent research shows that Russian juries acquit in nine per cent of cases compared with one per cent of cases tried by judges sitting alone.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/3725300/Russia-scraps-right-to-jury-trial.html

Is that an example of a more "efficient" legal system?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I dunno; do you think that Judge Freisler or the Inquistion tended to reach proper decisions?

Of course jury trials are often inconvenient to those in power, Russia recently decided to scrap them in certain cases because:

Recent research shows that Russian juries acquit in nine per cent of cases compared with one per ce ...[text shortened]... ht-to-jury-trial.html

Is that an example of a more "efficient" legal system?

Is there really a danger of Denmark turning into a corrupt autocracy any time soon?