• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    (juries wouldn’t be able to exist for most cases)

    What does this mean?

    Edit: read further down that you’re in a country that doesn’t guarantee jury trials so I’m guessing you’re referring to some kind of criteria not being met to trigger a trial by jury

    • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      In my opinion you should look at the law objectively, a group of people who aren’t fully educated on the law and aren’t trained in being objective will not form an objective opinion.

      Juries would be fine to give advice to the judge on how the public sees it, but they shouldn’t have a real impact on the outcome of the situation. That should be a question of executing the law.

      We have no trial by jury in The Netherlands and the international court of law doesn’t have a jury either. The just have 15 judges to decide the outcome.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Yeah… As someone who has been on a jury, I have to disagree completely. Putting people’s lives into the hands of one (most likely old, straight, white dude in the case of the US) single person is an awful idea. The concept of a trial by a jury of your peers is far from perfect, but it works relatively well.

        For an example a single judge being responsible for ruining the lives of thousands of children as a result of outright quid pro quo, look into “cash for kids” scandal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal