Jurisprudence

With what reasoning does the US generalize rulings from the particular opinion of uneducated randos in a jury?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Power by and from le people
    Pretty weird they got to get a jury for every little civil dispute though

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It may be right that the jury decide the fate of whoever, but how can the generalized ruling be justified, if "le people" is a group of 15 or so randos. This is an oligarchy of idiots. A few can't decide for the hundred millions, even if they are deciding in a small part of the whole set.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US doesn't do that. Juries have no say on Constitutionality.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They don't though? You know what the purpose of the judge is right? They don't just preside over the trial and make rulings on its proceedings, they also decide the sentence and interpret the decision of the jury into legal outcomes. In other words the jury is there merely to weigh the facts of the case and decide guilt according to the criteria presented before them. They don't have leeway to interpret the law, nor do they decide what happens to the person after the trial is done.

        The judge is the one who does all that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Pretty weird they got to get a jury for every little civil dispute though
      For civil disputes this only happened if the parties couldn't agree to a less public resolution of their differences. There are multiple steps before appearing in court. You still see many civil disputes handled through arbitration or private deals, but don't hear about it as often because such negotiations are often private.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    What's your problem with juries exactly?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The idea sounds stupid. The way law works with a shit ton of particular key cases and slimy lawyers mentioning each single one to circumvent one fairer outcome seems like a corruption of justice. I'm not really from america but this is how your shitty movies make it seem to be.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Maybe you should read a book on American law instead of forming your opinion based on movies.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why? American law doesn't interest me.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So why are you here?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It clearly interests you enough for you to talk about it.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the jury only makes findings of facts, not of law, and they have been doing so for at least 1,000 years under the common law.
    It probably doesn't make sense to you because everyone on this godawful board are legal positivists in practice, meaning they all believe that laws are laws because the all-powerful government commanded that they be such.
    But in common law countries, the law is an expression of the will of the people. And who better to effectuate the will of the people in a given community than the people in a given community by way of sitting on a jury?

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    majority authoritarianism.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They don’t. As another anon has said, juries only make findings of fact, not law. In other words, they decide what happened while the judge decides what it means. Only the latter becomes a principle of law. The fact that a jury thought someone deliberately pushed someone off a cliff doesn’t impact a judge in another case. The fact that the Supreme Court thought that deliberately pushing someone off a cliff was not in itself sufficient to prove intention to kill is what actually matters when it comes to precedent.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >9 out of 10 dentist agree you murdered someone
    >not enough consensus, case thrown out

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's a stupid holdover from our father (British Empire) and it's completely fricking stupid and should be done away with.

    For one, if you are rich...you are completely exempt from jury duty...no matter what anyone tells you. Even if by some chance your name slips through and you're called to jury duty, you just call the court house and say hey I'm local millionaire, I don't have time for this shit and you're excused.

    Secondly, if you're a poor frick...you are also excused. If you're homeless, you have no mailing address...but if you dont work...or in general don't produce for society...but have some kind of low income housing and a post box....you will still never get called on. In spite of the fact these people are just at home setting on their ass all week.

    So who does that leave? That's right, the wageslaves of society. The people already working 40-60 hours a week now get the added bonus of leaving their job multiple times over a course of 6 months to set in on trials of degenerates and criminals, when someone well better suited should be doing it.

    There should be local positions of people versed in law that just rule on all these cases instead of putting more shit on the backs of the working class to deal with.

    If I'm not mistaken, thats basically how the rest of the world works except for Britains children countries.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You would really rather be judged by a single fricking bureaucrat trying to meet their quota than a jury of your peers?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'd rather be judged a jury of people that are versed in law and are getting paid to do so. Not someone who has been called in begrudgingly against their will. Because they will already be pissed to be there.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You would really rather be judged by a single fricking bureaucrat trying to meet their quota than a jury of your peers?

          Better yet...with the unemployment rate where it's at....shouldn't these people be called in? When you got someone drawing a check for being unemployed while they're supposedly looking for another job, why not use them as jury duty until they find one?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          You want a jury of lawyers? Because they’re more versed in the law? Even though juries make findings of fact, with no need to have any knowledge of the law? In fact most countries with juries actually ban lawyers from serving as jurors because their preconceptions are likely to taint their deliberations.

          [...]
          Better yet...with the unemployment rate where it's at....shouldn't these people be called in? When you got someone drawing a check for being unemployed while they're supposedly looking for another job, why not use them as jury duty until they find one?

          And you would rather solve the problem of having uninformed juries by filling them up with jobless bums?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >In fact most countries with juries actually ban lawyers from serving as jurors because their preconceptions are likely to taint their deliberations.
            Proof?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He's wrong. But it's general practice for the defender or prosecutor to refuse possible Jurors due to supposed conflict of interest, which has its uses like family members or friends but also extends to careers, usually lawyers.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I guess I shouldn’t speak for other countries but in my state, lawyers are not eligible for jury duty - Jury Act 1995 (Qld) s 4(3)(f).
            Neither are judges, politicians, police officers, or prison officers. In fact the more likely a person is to have knowledge of the law, the likelier it is that they will be banned from jury service.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >I'd rather be judged a jury of people that are versed in law
          the judge is deciding the law of the case in the end anyway. The jury never decides the law.
          And if you really want a judge also finding facts so bad, you can always request a bench trial.
          >and are getting paid to do so
          holy frick, no, this is actually not at all what you want. Paying jurors for deciding cases only means will speed through their entire caseload to maximize profits.
          You don't even realize it, but your ideal court system would actually be a fricking hellish nightmare.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Most juries actually take their job seriously. They’re normal people, and you can feel superior to them for whatever reason, but, barring highly publicized examples, they do their best to do justice. And sometimes you need normal people with fresh eyes to look at facts. Lawyers can get drawn off into autistic weeds that don’t actually make sense.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >if you dont work...or in general don't produce for society...but have some kind of low income housing and a post box....you will still never get called on
      Not true. I'm a neet and I was summoned to jury duty once.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no justice so long as women can be jurors.
    Despicable.
    The amount of false convictions secured by making the women jurors feel sad or upset is sickening.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    court precedents are about defining the axioms of law in the same way mathematicians defined whole numbers and algebra. That way if you ask the judge to do something based on the fact that it was demonstrated valid in the past you don't have to prove 1+1=2 again.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      except caselaw, unlike math, can and should be perpetually uprooted whenever the interests of justice so provide

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        which it is but that requires you make the arguments to the judge about why you believe the precedent shouldn't be applicable

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The wigs were cool. Frick whoever decided that judges could ditch them. Women look sexy in them so I might even hate women judges less too.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *