Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 41

Thread: The Jury System & Democracy

  1. #1

    The Jury System & Democracy

    @Swordsmyth recently bumped an old thread of his in which he criticized the jury system.

    I responded with some comments about democracy, and how it suffers from similar problems.

    In the interest of not derailing that thread, as per SS's request, here's a new one.

    Below is our exchange thus far.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The Idea that 12 uneducated (at least in matters of law/legal philosophy/Rights etc.) members of the herd, who will not be held responsible for their actions...will be anything but a recipe for disaster is ludicrous on it's very face.
    And yet you believe that 326 million of these uneducated, irresponsible people should, as voters, rule the country...

    ...perhaps what makes the electorate better than the jury is that it is also ignorant of the relevant facts and can award itself money?
    That is why a constitution is needed to limit what the people and their representatives can do
    Sort of like how the law limits what juries can do?

    ...o wait, they ignore the law, hence the problem.




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Sort of like how the law limits what juries can do?

    ...o wait, they ignore the law, hence the problem.

    People are a problem in any form of government if they choose to break the rules but the trick is to balance them against eachother, that requires giving the people at large some say in their government.

    Do you really want to have this argument all over again?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    People are a problem in any form of government if they choose to break the rules but the trick is to balance them against eachother, that requires giving the people at large some say in their government.
    Is not the electorate in essence a giant jury, but without the judge or an appeals process, and which can render judgement on anything?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Is not the electorate in essence a giant jury, but without the judge or an appeals process, and which can render judgement on anything?
    I am not in favor of direct democracy, a republic has representatives and judges and a constitution.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I am not in favor of direct democracy, a republic has representatives and judges and a constitution.
    Before we get to those, would you agree that the electorate of a direct democracy is...

    ...a giant jury, but without the judge or an appeals process, and which can render judgement on anything?

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Before we get to those, would you agree that the electorate of a direct democracy is...

    ...a giant jury, but without the judge or an appeals process, and which can render judgement on anything?
    How are they that if they don't directly judge cases or pass laws?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    How are they that if they don't directly judge cases or pass laws?
    Juries don't pass laws, they only judge cases.

    The electorate of a direct democracy does both.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Juries don't pass laws, they only judge cases.

    The electorate of a direct democracy does both.
    Which is why I don't support direct democracy.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Which is why I don't support direct democracy.
    I know you don't.

    I asked you if you agreed with my characterization of it.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I know you don't.

    I asked you if you agreed with my characterization of it.
    It is reasonably accurate.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It is reasonably accurate.
    Now, to consider how effective these alleged checks on direct democracy might be, we go back to this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I am not in favor of direct democracy, a republic has representatives and judges and a constitution.
    Two questions:

    1. If the voters are unfit to make the laws themselves, how can they be fit to decide which representatives should make the laws?

    2. If the law in not effective in limiting juries, why would the law (constitution) be effective in limiting voters (or their representatives)?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    1. If the voters are unfit to make the laws themselves, how can they be fit to decide which representatives should make the laws?
    Because general principles are easier to understand than specifics.


    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    2. If the law in not effective in limiting juries, why would the law (constitution) be effective in limiting voters (or their representatives)?
    It depends on how the constitution is written, juries are limited only by appeals.
    People who receive government money shouldn't be allowed to vote for instance.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because general principles are easier to understand than specifics.
    I don't follow.

    In a direct democracy, a proposal might be made by a voter to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour.

    Whereas, in a representative democracy, a person seeking election might come forward proposing the same increase.

    Why is the voter more likely to get it right (i.e. vote against this plan/person) in the second case?

    It depends on how the constitution is written, juries are limited only by appeals.
    Once again, I don't follow.

    What does an appeals court judge being able to restrain jurors have to do with the law restraining them?

    You cited the law (constitution) and judges as two distinct restraining forces.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-01-2018 at 07:32 PM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I don't follow.

    In a direct democracy, a proposal might be made by a voter to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour.

    Whereas, in a representative democracy, a person seeking election might come forward proposing the same increase.

    Why is the voter more likely to get it right (i.e. vote against this plan/person) in the second case?
    Because there are always more than one issue at stake when a candidate runs for office, it is therefore easier to get the voters to listen to principles that cover more than one issue as opposed to voting for a single issue at a time where they believe they can micromanage things one at a time.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Once again, I don't follow.

    What does appeals court judges being able to restrain jurors have to do with the law itself (contra people, like judges) restraining them?
    The judges are a limited restraint on the jury which is why juries are bad, a properly designed constitution has more substantial limits like the franchise restriction I mentioned.

    In the end all governments depend on people and the principles they believe in or the incentives that motivate them. no form of government can be perfect.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because there are always more than one issue at stake when a candidate runs for office, it is therefore easier to get the voters to listen to principles that cover more than one issue as opposed to voting for a single issue at a time where they believe they can micromanage things one at a time.
    Would you give a concrete example?

    The judges are a limited restraint on the jury which is why juries are bad,
    The judges are indeed a restraint.

    But the judges aren't the law; judges are people.

    I'm asking you how the law itself restrains anyone.

    In other words, in a jury system without judges or appeals, where there is no person to restrain them, how does the law restrain them?

    E.G. If the law says X is not a crime, but the jury/electorate says it is, and there is no person to check this decision, what happens?

    ...the law materializes like a genie and smites them?



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Would you give a concrete example?
    If a candidate is running on a platform that includes raising property taxes and increasing spending on schools it can be logically deduced that they would be willing to raise other kinds of taxes and increase other kinds of spending, whereas a voter in a direct democracy could decide that they wouldn't vote for any others.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The judges are indeed a restraint.

    But the judges aren't the law; judges are people.

    I'm asking you how the law itself restrains anyone.

    In other words, in a jury system without judges or appeals, where there is no person to restrain them, how does the law restrain them?

    E.G. If the law says X is not a crime, but the jury/electorate says it is, and there is no person to check this decision, what happens?

    ...the law materializes like a genie and smites them?
    As we discussed before rules are only as powerful as the people loyal to them, that is true of any system.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If a candidate is running on a platform that includes raising property taxes and increasing spending on schools it can be logically deduced that they would be willing to raise other kinds of taxes and increase other kinds of spending
    So the voter can infer that the school tax and spend candidate is also for other kinds of taxing and spending?

    Alright, supposing that true, so what?

    whereas a voter in a direct democracy could decide that they wouldn't vote for any others.
    What others? I don't know what you mean.

    As we discussed before rules are only as powerful as the people loyal to them, that is true of any system.
    No, there is a fundamental difference between rules about who has power, and rules about what those who have power can do.

    "Hey guys, you all must share power."

    "Hey guys, you all must share power, and, Oh, even if you all agree to do X, this paper here says you can't do it."

    The latter is meaningless.

    People empowered by law (e.g. a branch of government) can defend their own powers; papers cannot do anything.

    E.G. In the US, the separation of powers has survived remarkably well, while Art. I Sec. 8 is a joke.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    So the voter can infer that the school tax and spend candidate is also for other kinds of taxing and spending?

    Alright, supposing that true, so what?
    So the voter must deal with general principles instead of trying to micromanage things to suit their own selfish preferences.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    What others? I don't know what you mean.
    Other taxes and expenditures.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No, there is a fundamental difference between rules about who has power, and rules about what those who have power can do.

    "Hey guys, you all must share power."

    "Hey guys, you all must share power, and, Oh, even if you all agree to do X, this paper here says you can't do it."

    The latter is meaningless.

    People empowered by law (e.g. a branch of government) can defend their own powers; papers cannot do anything.

    E.G. In the US, the separation of powers has survived remarkably well, while Art. I Sec. 8 is a joke.
    People who believe in the limits on power can enforce those rules, A1S8 wasn't a joke until things changed so that no significant faction believed in it.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    So the voter must deal with general principles instead of trying to micromanage things to suit their own selfish preferences.

    Other taxes and expenditures.
    Again, I don't know what you're arguing....

    Voters infer that candidate tax-and-spend-for-schools will also tax-and-spend-for-$#@!.

    They like tax-and-spend-for-schools, but not tax-and-spend-for-$#@!.

    They vote for the candidate hesitantly, because they value getting the schools more than avoiding the $#@!; i.e. they compromise.

    Whereas, in a direct democracy, the voter need not compromise; he votes for schools, against $#@!, as separate votes, not one candidate.

    ...this you propose as an advantage of representative democracy...?

    People who believe in the limits on power can enforce those rules, A1S8 wasn't a joke until things changed so that no significant faction believed in it.
    That's true, and to my point.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Again, I don't know what you're arguing....

    Voters infer that candidate tax-and-spend-for-schools will also tax-and-spend-for-$#@!.

    They like tax-and-spend-for-schools, but not tax-and-spend-for-$#@!.

    They vote for the candidate hesitantly, because they value getting the schools more than avoiding the $#@!; i.e. they compromise.

    Whereas, in a direct democracy, the voter need not compromise; he votes for schools, against $#@!, as separate votes, not one candidate.

    ...this you propose as an advantage of representative democracy...?
    Or they can vote against the candidate because there are far more taxes and expenditures that they don't want than those that they do.
    It is also important to have the constitutional limits that I have discussed.



    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's true, and to my point.
    But it is just as true about who has power as I explained before, it is also true of any specific laws.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Or they can vote against the candidate because there are far more taxes and expenditures that they don't want than those that they do.
    Yes, well they could do anything at all.

    But you said they would behave better than direct democracy voters, and I'm not seeing an explanation as to why.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Yes, well they could do anything at all.

    But you said they would behave better than direct democracy voters, and I'm not seeing an explanation as to why.
    Because they are forced to consider principles instead of single issues.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because they are forced to consider principles instead of single issues.
    You've not explained how that's so, or even why it would matter.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    You've not explained how that's so, or even why it would matter.
    Because they don't get to micro manage government actions and it matters because principles protect the rights of others better than subjective micromanagement.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Because they don't get to micro manage government actions and it matters because principles protect the rights of others better than subjective micromanagement.
    If all you mean is that voters vote for "more education spending" contra exactly how much goes to salaries v. buildings, etc, well sure.

    But so what? If the voters want more free stuff (as is their wont), they'll have it either way.

    The best that can be said of representative democracy is that it has greater regime certainty than direct democracy.

    Changes occur less frequently (reflecting the election cycle).

    It's like a goose and hummingbird moving at the same speed toward the same location.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 10-01-2018 at 10:07 PM.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Now, to consider how effective these alleged checks on direct democracy might be, we go back to this:

    Two questions:

    1. If the voters are unfit to make the laws themselves, how can they be fit to decide which representatives should make the laws?
    I agree. A republican form of government has the same problem (creeping socialism) that a direct democracy has, it just slows the process down. As you know I think the trick is to limit the pool of voters. Criminals should not be allowed to vote and neither should those receiving stolen goods. Even countries with no restrictions on voting have managed to shrink government although they usually need to go bankrupt. New Zealand for example. I think if you remove the main problem with democracy (voting to steal) there's a good chance it might eliminate the natural tendency of government to gradually gain ground and liberty to gradually lose ground.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I agree. A republican form of government has the same problem (creeping socialism) that a direct democracy has, it just slows the process down. As you know I think the trick is to limit the pool of voters. Criminals should not be allowed to vote and neither should those receiving stolen goods. Even countries with no restrictions on voting have managed to shrink government although they usually need to go bankrupt. New Zealand for example. I think if you remove the main problem with democracy (voting to steal) there's a good chance it might eliminate the natural tendency of government to gradually gain ground and liberty to gradually lose ground.
    I very much like the spirit of your proposed reforms - they attempt to tackle the real problem (incentives) - but they aren't workable in practice. Any constitutional provision which stands between voters (or the special interests corralling voters) and their boodle will be quickly amended (or "reinterpreted") away.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I very much like the spirit of your proposed reforms - they attempt to tackle the real problem (incentives) - but they aren't workable in practice. Any constitutional provision which stands between voters (or the special interests corralling voters) and their boodle will be quickly amended (or "reinterpreted") away.
    You may be right but you don't know for sure that it wouldn't work in practice (and neither do I). The idea is that the politicians promising smaller government and lower taxes would be more likely to get elected, as opposed to the current system where politicians promising the most free stuff are more likely to get elected. All I know is that it's like a sinking boat with a hole in its hull. Maybe fixing the hole won't keep it from sinking, maybe there's some other problems but as a general rule of troubleshooting you fix the obvious problem first then see what happens. And allowing people to vote to steal is a massive, effing obvious hole in the boat.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Criminals should not be allowed to vote and neither should those receiving stolen goods.
    I guess that the posters in this thread (I don’t know about Heavenlyboy34 though) are arguing that the big criminals – like Trump, Kushner, Adelson, Soros, Kissinger, Bush, Rockefeller and Bronfman – should increase their stranglehold on the US legislation and courts even more to Make England Great Again...

    In a terrorist nation like the USA (is there any other kind in our Brave new world), judges and attorneys – like Clinton, Obama and Louis M. Bloomfield – are even bigger criminals than the little criminals that are locked up in prison and forced to slave labour in the “land of the free”.
    You can’t blame the jury system for this atrocity, as crooked attorneys keep their clients (victims) away from a “jury of their peers”: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ion-in-the-USA

    But maybe I misunderstood and it’s objective that the US population is 5 times as criminal as the rest of the world.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Jury system = bad judgements and citizen slavery
    By Swordsmyth in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-01-2018, 05:32 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-11-2018, 03:16 AM
  3. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 08-28-2013, 05:44 PM
  4. Is jury nullification not mob rule or democracy?
    By Josh_LA in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 07-31-2010, 12:32 PM
  5. Democracy: The God That Failed. A System of Competing Bads (rather than Goods).
    By AutonomousLiberty in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2010, 05:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •