AngelRho wrote:
I don't think juries violate people's liberty at all.
A right for you to be called away from your life to serve someone else's cause is a reduction of your freedom. That's pretty basic.
Quote:
Juries are the final word in the application of justice. If you believe that a LAW is unjust, you don't have much recourse to change it because the Supreme Court isn't really that accessible for most situations, your congressman are too worried about their political careers, and there's very little that, say, 12 people on their own can really do to make much difference.
Well, right, jury nullification has some value, but frankly, things work better if we had a better political structure, than if we just hope that the jury nullifies. I mean, the problem with this is that the jury can act in a manner to pervert justice, and perhaps more visibly than they maintain it. As it stands, having legal actors does not mean that these legal actors are going to feel as if they are bound by the strict interpretation of law to begin with, as we already know that the court system as it stands, revises the laws and their interpretation on the go. Because of this, why not leave the task to people more suited to know the basic structure of the law, and who have seen the flaws and all else more clearly?
Quote:
Juries are perhaps the most powerful vehicle for democracy.
I don't believe in democracy either.