schlimm
You are entitled to believe whatever you want. If the idea of trial by jury, a right obtained with much effort in our history, offends you, then so be it, although your sarcasm ("heavy handed epistle lauding savant juries") seems excessive, but never mind. Our population has a normal distribution of intelligence. You seem to think juries are composed of more stupid people than what should be the predicted case. Ditto with the poor and whatever other socioeconomic factors you are considering. So if I understand your reasoning, those factors render them incapable of reaching fair and just verdicts, especially in civil cases (you and others brought them up). So what would you suggest using to replace this system that has stood the test of time?
And BTW, why the picture of Carl Jung? Your postings appear to have nothing in common.
Well, I'll tell ya Schlimm, it's like this:
I never said that I was opposed to (or offended by ) the right to "trial by jury"...that is something you have cooked up in your own head, and read into my post, and by so doing you have gone a long way to support my premise, thank you muches!!
My reservation was with Gabe's apparent posture that juries cannot "be stupid" (or maybe it was that he was offended at the suggestion that juries can/(may) be incompetant, since he won't stand up for himself it's hard to distill what he thought he meant) when in fact the history books are a cornucopia to the contrary.
I used the criminal case scenario as a prone example because it illustrates perfectly just how susceptible we are to our own preconceived notions. and can fall prey to our own ambitions in the "stupidest" ways.
Are all juries stupid? No, I don't think so, but because the lawyers orchestrating the proceedings are LIKELY more highly educated than a majority of the jurists they perform in front of, it would be a FOOL who would believe that juries are (as a rule) too clever to be misled. My point is precisely the contrary.
Afterall, attorneys shovel that stuff for a living day in and day out, while your average jurist might get dragged into that foreign environment only a couple times in their lifetime , and potentially be overwhelmed in the process
Add to that the strong likelihood that most jurists (in a civil proceeding) will not be "deep pockets" themselves, and many might even have contempt for those who are wealthier than they are, it's not that great of a stretch to fathom that a battle proven lawyer can convince a gullible jury that their poor suffering plaintiff needs the settlement money more that the deep pocketed defendant does, actual guilt notwithstanding.
I guess that's part of the reason why there is an appeal process?