• VindictiveJudge
    link
    91 year ago

    The point of a jury is to get people who are unbiassed to determine guilt or innocence to help make the trial fair and not a kangaroo court. The jury determining that they absolutely did it, but the law is bullshit so they shouldn’t be punished and submitting a not guilty verdict anyway is basically a glitch or an exploit. They’re not there to determine the validity of the law, just whether or not the law was broken.

    • @pinkdrunkenelephants
      link
      51 year ago

      The real joke is that the founding fathers genuinely expected people to be fair, impartial and unbiased.

      • VindictiveJudge
        link
        21 year ago

        I mean, nobody in any country has found a better option yet and it’s been a couple centuries.

        • @pinkdrunkenelephants
          link
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          🤔 I made a thread a while back asking people here what they would do if they were founding a country, and one guy had the best solution I ever heard anyone come up with:

          It was this tiered, hierarchial council lottery system where people were randomly elected to serve on councils that managed every aspect of day to day life. Eligibility for each council depended on your education, age, background, etc. and it was set up such that you had to take leave from your old job, but your spot would be held, you’d be paid the same rate you were before, etc. to disincentivize people from not participating.

          He went into a lot of detail about it, and had a long writeup for it because it was a project for his pol sci degree, and it was based on the assumption that no human involved was scrupulous or trustworthy, and if some aspect of the system could be abused, it would be.

          To this day I have not seen anyone come up with a better governance idea, past or present.