A "jury of one's peers" carries with it all the prejudices and subjectivity that the random citizen brings to it. The job of a prosecutor is to convict. The job of a defense attorney is to acquit. The methods they use to win their case often involve a bit of smoke and mirrors to sway the jury to their side and the guilt or innocence of the accused becomes secondary to the goal of "WIN-WIN-WIN". It's illogical to expect a bunch of average Joes and Marys to reach a unanimous impartial decision with this type of system. A better means to ensure some semblance of justice would be to have a panel of legal experts or judges make the final decision as they do in some European countries. I rest my case!
2006-12-27
05:38:46
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Johann
5
in
Law & Ethics