It disturbs me that a random Internet idiot can be on a jury

[Melrose]

I don't want to turn this into a PRSI thread, but as collector, frequent shooter, occasional gunsmith(a skill that carries over from my training as a watchmaker) and reloader I probably fit most peoples' definition of "gun nut." As someone who hangs around gun shops a lot, I'd say that the vast majority of the gun owning public don't fit the definition of "gun nut."

It's a matter of perspective, though-most I realize that many folks consider any gun owner a "gun nut." I can assure they are not.

Truth be told, too, folks who are not "gun nuts" are probably a bigger danger than the "gun nuts."

Not to turn it into a PSIR thread either, but I'd venture that many photos released after the fact of school shooters depict them posing with a large assorted of guns.

But I agree - not every gun owner is a gun nut. That would hardly be fair to label everyone that way. I just notice that people who *really* into guns, in my experience, also tend put blame elsewhere when they're used for harm, and lack common sense about ownership and carry laws. Mixing people with huge attitudes, the desire to impress and/or show off, and the love of high powered guns or fingerprint resistant handguns is a recipe for disaster. You have to agree that so. stinkin'. many. guns owners have huge egos surrounding them.

My brother is a gun nut and he fits the bill perfectly. There's no reason a normal member of the public needs to possess an assault rifle like an AR-15.

So anyhow, I'm not singling you out and not calling you any name just jumping in and out with a quick opinion.

 

[Meister]

Not to turn it into a PSIR thread either, but I'd venture that many photos released after the fact of school shooters depict them posing with a large assorted of guns.

But I agree - not every gun owner is a gun nut. That would hardly be fair to label everyone that way. I just notice that people who *really* into guns, in my experience, also tend put blame elsewhere when they're used for harm, and lack common sense about ownership and carry laws. Mixing people with huge attitudes, the desire to impress and/or show off, and the love of high powered guns or fingerprint resistant handguns is a recipe for disaster. You have to agree that so. stinkin'. many. guns owners have huge egos surrounding them.

My brother is a gun nut and he fits the bill perfectly. There's no reason a normal member of the public needs to possess an assault rifle like an AR-15.

So anyhow, I'm not singling you out and not calling you any name just jumping in and out with a quick opinion.

What does your opinion on the 2nd amendment have to do with a thread on the jury system? Do you maybe feel that there is a shortage of gun threads on macrumors?

 

[Meister]

That is a fair point.
But because you don't trust your own government, well that's up to you.

Every educated and sane person should have a healthy distrust of every form of government. Are you actually telling me, that you trust government?

----------

But we in the Netherlands see all the "ALL WHITE JURY AGREED"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-white_jury

Just look at the **** storm after the "OJ Trial" when it didn't go the "White Way"

Now of course it's handled by the "Grand Jury" so your white police can shoot people of colour, and not even go to trial.

Again: In the adversial system you can choose to have a judge-only trial, which can be of an advantage. Europeans criticising the jury system have no ground to stand on.

Actually, I would argue that both have plusses and weaknesses/minuses.

A state bureaucratic system can be an excellent system, not subject to popular will, or with jurors running the risk of facing intimidation or threats from armed groups, (or criminal gangs), seeking to undermine the state, or rule of law in certain cities or regions: There were periods of time in the Irish republic, for example, when jury trials were abolished for those charged with terrorist offences as jurors ran the risk of being threatened.

However, a bureaucratic system, while remote, - and, at its best - independent, informed and disinterested - can also suffer from the systemic biases and prejudices and bureaucratic inertia that a state bureaucracy anywhere may become prone to, which means that inbuilt biases can exert excessive influence over outcomes, and thus, it can come to be seen as an unjust and unfair arm of the state, one which seeks to protect the powerful while punishing the weak.

You are right, that both systems can have their pros and cons. In germany the jury system was abandond, because the general population had no understanding of any legal concepts and jurors were to uneducated to make any decisions. Now, if you look at legal proceedings a lot of it appears to be a bit of a freak show, where one judge holds all the power to investigate, question and scream at the witnesses, admit evidence, come to a verdict and eventualy impose the sentence. There appears to be no proper separation of power involved. Just a one man circus. But to take your example of the IRA era: Wouldn't it be easier to threaten one judge, instead the jury? How would non-jury-trials solve a problem like that?

 

[Crusoe]

You are right, that both systems can have their pros and cons. In germany the jury system was abandond, because the general population had no understanding of any legal concepts and jurors were to uneducated to make any decisions. Now, if you look at legal proceedings a lot of it appears to be a bit of a freak show, where one judge holds all the power to investigate, question and scream at the witnesses, admit evidence, come to a verdict and eventualy impose the sentence. There appears to be no proper separation of power involved. Just a one man circus. But to take your example of the IRA era: Wouldn't it be easier to threaten one judge, instead the jury? How would non-jury-trials solve a problem like that?

I imagine it's easier to protect one judge and their family than twelve jurors (plus alternates) and their families. Plus the judge, to a limited degree, signs up to take some of that risk, whereas jurors don't.

 

[jeremy h]

I haven't ever sat on a jury but my partner has twice (go figure)? Each time she was hugely impressed by how seriously her fellow jurors (from all walks of life) took the whole thing. She was also surprised at how good the judges were and how unimpressed everyone was by the smooth and expensive rhetoric of the lawyers if the facts didn't back them up.

----------

I imagine it's easier to protect one judge and their family than twelve jurors (plus alternates) and their families. Plus the judge, to a limited degree, signs up to take some of that risk, whereas jurors don't.

I think they were called Diplock courts. My understanding is that even in Northern Ireland they were only used for paramilitary trials. I think non-terrorism trials still used juries. There was intimidation but also bear in mind that you were effectively attempting to try a sectarian crime with what would probably have been a sectarian jury.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I imagine it's easier to protect one judge and their family than twelve jurors (plus alternates) and their families. Plus the judge, to a limited degree, signs up to take some of that risk, whereas jurors don't.

I haven't ever sat on a jury but my partner has twice (go figure)? Each time she was hugely impressed by how seriously her fellow jurors (from all walks of life) took the whole thing. She was also surprised at how good the judges were and how unimpressed everyone was by the smooth and expensive rhetoric of the lawyers if the facts didn't back them up.

----------



I think they were called Diplock courts. My understanding is that even in Northern Ireland they were only used for paramilitary trials. I think non-terrorism trials still used juries. There was intimidation but also bear in mind that you were effectively attempting to try a sectarian crime with what would probably have been a sectarian jury.

Both during the Second World War, and during the 'low intensity conflict' in Northern Ireland, special - jury less - courts were constituted in what is now the Republic of Ireland to deal with IRA related crimes (the Special Criminal Court). From the 70s on, the judges in question would have enjoyed armed police protection.

Northern Ireland had its own specific issues, but yes, the Diplock courts existed there.