[Craig] The way I heard it was: "Who wants to be tried by people too stupid to get out of jury duty?" We already have alternatives to juries. Small claims & appellate court cases are decided by judges. Civil lawsuits can be settled by arbitrators. The point of a jury of one's peers is to ensure that judge, prosecutor & jury are all not government. I see no problem with a defendant waiving trial by jury & choosing another alternative.
[Arlo] We are on the same page, and I would guess what Krimel was referring to was not too far from this. Like I said, if one's freedom or incarceration rested on a complex understanding of some particular "ology", you would think one would want a jury of "ology-experts", or at least "ology-knowledgeable", citizens. I would. I mean, you wouldn't want your freedom to hinge on MY understanding of, say, forensic pathology, would you? (I wouldn't!) And yes, a jury should not consist of a group that would represent an outside interest over the interest of fairness to the defendant OR plaintiff. I am not saying that "informedness" should be the only criteria for jury selection, only one. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
