• fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The salient question is not whether it exists, but whether it’s a feature or a bug.

    If jurors are intended to resolve questions of law, then judges really have no purpose. Just let jurors decide based on how much they like the defendant.

    You may as well just do trial by combat instead - equally as just but far more entertaining.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      By that logic, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat?

      The problem with your logic is that you assume jurors don’t have a sense of ethics and justice. If they truly don’t, then forget the judiciary as a problem, because the society itself isn’t going to hold up. So in that way, applying your logic here and under that assumption you are right, why bother with democracy and not trial by combat when people no longer care about acting in good will?

    • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      29 minutes ago

      If it’s a bug, wow. Almost 250 years, and they can’t fix it?

      Also, judges are there to make sure both sides play by the rules.