Stephen Webb wrote:
This reminded of an article I read somewhere but it took me a while to remember where and by whom.
It is sort of relevant. By Richard Dawkins. I read it in A Devil's Chaplain, but it is here too: http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1997-11-16trialbyjury.shtml
and there's also
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy10.html
on the other hand
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/constitutionscourtsandlaw/trialjudge.shtml
Thanks Stephen. I think the heart of the matter is there, particularly in the libertyhaven article. And I suspect this is also the basis of Niall's confusion (but he can correct me if I'm wrong). In fact, if I'm right, I'm not sure that I'd call it confusion - more like the fear he labelled it initially. Essentially, we rely on a jury system because we believe that's the most reliable way of ensuring an impartial verdict. We believe that it's unlikely that 12 more-or-less-randomly-selected people are unlikely to all be swayed the same way, by the media or anything else, and that if they are, they're probably right. The recent Appeals Court decision not only suggests that isn't the case, but also demonstrates the power of a group of three (and only a majority of two) judges to overrule a supposedly impartial verdict, and thus call into question the entire basis of our assumption.
I think Dawkins misses a significant point in his open-it-to-the-media hypothesis, and that is that while many people around the country may have listened to media coverage, a) it depends on the accuracy of the reporting to ensure fair opinions, and b) you'd need to ensure a balanced poll. For instance, a poll of JJJ listeners (supposing they did such a thing) would almost certainly bring a vastly different result to a poll of John Laws listeners, and we know which would outvote the other on sheer ratings numbers! Not to mention the fact that many, many people listen to one small bit of the coverage and jump to a conclusion, rather than carefully examining all the evidence.
I'm getting too sleepy to absorb McElroy's article :-(
Mind you, I still disagree with Sparks' final assertion. Disagree vehemently, in fact, having had to refuse jury service myself for reasons of conscience!
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
