Why do courts have juries?
Why do people, who don't really have any knowledge in law, decide a case in court? Shouldn't the court decide based on laws and not the intuition of a layperson?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
OliRos · 22-25, F
That is an argument against democracy.
If governments were chosen by experts who understood government, we would not have to have all these expensive elections and parliaments/congresses/senates.
Much more efficient.
The only problem is, the citizen is not there to serve the state. It's the other way around.
The citizen is the state. The government and the courts - and all they represent for society - are extensions of the citizen.
Jury service and voting are two key rights and duties of the citizen. Rights that we give ourselves.
If governments were chosen by experts who understood government, we would not have to have all these expensive elections and parliaments/congresses/senates.
Much more efficient.
The only problem is, the citizen is not there to serve the state. It's the other way around.
The citizen is the state. The government and the courts - and all they represent for society - are extensions of the citizen.
Jury service and voting are two key rights and duties of the citizen. Rights that we give ourselves.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@OliRos I would disagree that it's an argument against democracy. Based on that logic, you'd have to have a democratic committee which makes decisions for every larger police operation for example.
I think that courts should be politically neutral and don't be associated with any party or anything. They should interpret and judge the laws in a neutral and objective way. If the result is undemocratic, not the result should be changed but the law on which it is based on. And that is a democratic act done by the parliament.
I think that courts should be politically neutral and don't be associated with any party or anything. They should interpret and judge the laws in a neutral and objective way. If the result is undemocratic, not the result should be changed but the law on which it is based on. And that is a democratic act done by the parliament.
OliRos · 22-25, F
@Luke73
No, you are being absolutist.
We have democratic elections for people to represent us in government or opposition. We do not have referendums/plebiscites on every issue that comes before that body of representatives.
Who will appoint the members of these courts?
Based on that logic, you'd have to have a democratic committee which makes decisions for every larger police operation for example.
No, you are being absolutist.
We have democratic elections for people to represent us in government or opposition. We do not have referendums/plebiscites on every issue that comes before that body of representatives.
I think that courts should be politically neutral and don't be associated with any party or anything.
Who will appoint the members of these courts?
OliRos · 22-25, F
@NativePortlander1970 Is there a "true democracy"?
@OliRos Not any honest one.
OliRos · 22-25, F
@NativePortlander1970 Is there or isn't there?