--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At Stardate 20030626.0018, Jan Coffey wrote: > > > > >I trust an average person taken from the street far more than I would > > > >trust someone who does it for a living. > > > > > > So, when you feel ill, you ask a not-medically-trained average person > from > > > the street for a diagnosis, rather than go see a physician (a trained > > > professional who does this for a living)? > > > >That is a big differnce! I trust 12 of my peers to say whether or not I am > > >guilty than 1 man or woman who has all of that power. > > Okay, then let's not ask *one* Joe Average to diagnose your illness, let's > ask twelve Joe's. > > You don't feel well. You drag twelve people in from the street, and they > all say that you're having a case of the common cold. Nothing to worry > about, keep warm, take in plenty of vitamin C, and you'll be feeling a lot > better in a few days. > > You have been diagnosed by twelve of your peers. Good for you. However, if > you had consulted a *professional* (your physician) you would now have been > > in hospital because you actually have pneumonia. Unfortunately you didn't > go see your physician, so rather than feeling a lot better in a few days, > you'll be dead in a few days... > > So much for trust in a dozen untrained amateurs...
That is rediculous! The differnce in doctors and judges is that a doctor is one you choose. He has a reputation to keep based on keeping you well. You can see 12 doctors if you want to. (it's called alternative opinions and if your really sick you definalty should do this). With crime, you don't get to pick your judge (if you could you could pick one that you knew or was your friend). Not all cases are cut and dry. A jury is more likely to err on the side of inocent than on the side of guilty in such cases. It takes such ultimate power to take someone elses life or freedom away from one person. The PEOPLE are making the dicision not THE GOVERNMENT! In the US we trust PEOPLE more than we trust GOVERNMENT. It is part of the reason we allways claim to be more "free". You may not agree with this, but you are not going to convince us otherwise. Our nation is founded on such consepts. > > > When someone allegedly broke a law, do you really believe that > uneducated > > > Joe Average is more qualified to determine whether a law really was > broken > > > than someone who has actually *studied* the laws? > > > >Yes absolutly! and not just one someone, 12 someones who have to agree! > > But why would those twelve be more qualified? You expect them to be able to > tell if you broke a law, but they have never even studied law! It's like > having your house built by someone who has never done construction work in > his life! They may not be more qualified in determining that some intricate law (which they do not understand) was broken. But that is a good thing. If the law is so intricate that 12 average people can not understand whether or not it was broken then they must find the suspect inocent. becouse if they can not understand the law then they certinaly could not say -without a shadow of a doubt- that the law was broken. And yes we do trust our PEOPLE to be smart enough to understand this, and to make the right decision in this case. What it means is that the law itself is "broken" and needs to be fixed. We don't put up with intricat laws which require profesionals to understand whether or not we have broken them. So yes, 12 average people are more qualified. In fact much more qualified than anyone who has studied law. Someone who has studied law is in fact much ~less~ qualified in this respect. Remember we are not tring to make sure that all the real criminals are punnished, but that no inocents are. > > > >That is too much power, and IMO Judges already have too much power. > > > > > > The only real power they have is to declare someone guilty and > determine > > > appropriate punishment -- but then, that's what they are trained for > and > > > get paid for! And if they screw up, their decision can be overturned by > a > > > higher court. > > > >When religion and polotics come into play, that can become very shady > >buisness. > > > >I prefer 12 other reasonable people just like me, than one guy who might > >think that I need to be locked up becouse of my religions of political > beliefs. > > Same thing can happen with a jury. If you have killed someone, and only one > > jury member votes "not guilty" because he happens to be the only one who > shares your (rather radical) political views, you'll walk -- despite the > fact that you were caught with the still smoking gun in your hand. That > wouldn't exactly be fair, now would it? But we in the US prefer that posibility. It isn't fair, but it is much less fair for an inocent person to be commited for a crime they did not commit. Specificaly beouce the later can be used by one group to control others. Thuse ~~ taking away their freedom ~~. Besides both the prosecution and defence get to veto jury members they do not thing will be impartial. And yes this process takes time and money. But your scenario is very unlikely due to it. And yes we still prefer to have such an inificient system to the alternative. > > Jeroen van Baardwijk > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com > > > [Sponsored by:] > _____________________________________________________________________________ > The newest lyrics on the Net! > > http://lyrics.astraweb.com > > Click NOW! > ===== _________________________________________________ Jan William Coffey _________________________________________________ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com [Sponsored by:] _____________________________________________________________________________ The newest lyrics on the Net! http://lyrics.astraweb.com Click NOW!
