Philosophy Now Forum

The viewpoint of the AEP is that any case accepted for adjudication, whether it be criminal or civil, should be handled by impartial attorneys appointed by a private firm and paid for by the government, and judged by a professional jury appointed by a private firm and paid for by the government. There are no legal expenses that are not paid for by the government. This is a social integration function that is a government responsibility.

Whats a professional jury?

Arising_uk wrote:Whats a professional jury?

People who have an expertise in a particular area of law and are hired as jurors on a regular basis.

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Whats a professional jury?

People who have an expertise in a particular area of law and are hired as jurors on a regular basis.

This is an interesting concept but might be difficult to implement, who decides who is expert and who is not.

FYI, in one instance I was informed by a police officer that I was considered to be an expert witness.

In a case many years ago a person was accused of sending porn through the mail, the question came down to convincing a jury of people from a particular area of the country, that the material was art rather than porn. The accused took the plea deal, rather than go to trial. He didn't believe the people of that area were sophisticated enough to know the difference, and I would agree.

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Whats a professional jury?

People who have an expertise in a particular area of law and are hired as jurors on a regular basis.

I kind of like how the Italian system worked in the Kirchner case. They had the adversarial part of it and then several independent panels (appeals courts) reviewed the facts until they got it right.

thedoc wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Whats a professional jury?

People who have an expertise in a particular area of law and are hired as jurors on a regular basis.

This is an interesting concept but might be difficult to implement, who decides who is expert and who is not.

FYI, in one instance I was informed by a police officer that I was considered to be an expert witness.

In a case many years ago a person was accused of sending porn through the mail, the question came down to convincing a jury of people from a particular area of the country, that the material was art rather than porn. The accused took the plea deal, rather than go to trial. He didn't believe the people of that area were sophisticated enough to know the difference, and I would agree.

First of all, you have a private company whose reputation is built on providing competent professional jurors. Secondly, in a criminal case, for instance, a case is prosecuted because it seems to merit the cost of prosecution. The appointed attorneys have no ax to grind, and take no position on the case other than presenting all the facts that should be considered by the jurors. The way cases are handled now, prosecuting attorneys try to convince jurors taken off the street with no expertise whatsoever that the defendant is guiltier than sin, and defense attorneys try to persuade jurors that their defendant is as innocent as the driven snow. Just on the face of it, it's a mockery of justice.

Wyman wrote:I kind of like how the Italian system worked in the Kirchner case. They had the adversarial part of it and then several independent panels (appeals courts) reviewed the facts until they got it right.

Perhaps you mean Kercher case.

Wyman wrote:I kind of like the Italian system.

You mean like the Amanda Knox case, where many years after acquittal, she could have been extradited back to Italy and face double jeopardy?

Yes, Kercher and Knox, sorry. Such travesties happen with regularity in adversarial systems - which I take it is what you are trying to fix with your idea of professional jurors. I was remarking that, although a travesty occurred, they had a system that could fix it and get it right in the end.

Corte d'Assise, Corte d'Assise d'appello, e Cassazione. L'architettura costituzionale italiana è perfetta, si. Anyway, I read some papers, and I think Amanda was guilty. How did she know Guede was in the house? Of course she was there, too.

Wyman wrote:Yes, Kercher and Knox, sorry. Such travesties happen with regularity in adversarial systems - which I take it is what you are trying to fix with your idea of professional jurors. I was remarking that, although a travesty occurred, they had a system that could fix it and get it right in the end.

I guess from Amanda Knox's perspective they finally got it right, but that doesn't mean they actually got it right. And even if they did, how do you justify putting Amanda through that nightmare with no compensation whatsoever?

bobevenson wrote:First of all, you have a private company whose reputation is built on providing competent professional jurors. ...

And what would be the criteria for such a judgement?

Secondly, in a criminal case, for instance, a case is prosecuted because it seems to merit the cost of prosecution. The appointed attorneys have no ax to grind, and take no position on the case other than presenting all the facts that should be considered by the jurors. The way cases are handled now, prosecuting attorneys try to convince jurors taken off the street with no expertise whatsoever that the defendant is guiltier than sin, and defense attorneys try to persuade jurors that their defendant is as innocent as the driven snow. Just on the face of it, it's a mockery of justice.

No, its exactly how an adversarial system should work and it works pretty well in most cases.

bobevenson wrote:The viewpoint of the AEP is that any case accepted for adjudication, whether it be criminal or civil, should be handled by impartial attorneys appointed by a private firm and paid for by the government, and judged by a professional jury appointed by a private firm and paid for by the government. There are no legal expenses that are not paid for by the government. This is a social integration function that is a government responsibility.

Welcome to Soviet America.
The legal system in the hands of the state.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The viewpoint of the AEP is that any case accepted for adjudication, whether it be criminal or civil, should be handled by impartial attorneys appointed by a private firm and paid for by the government, and judged by a professional jury appointed by a private firm and paid for by the government. There are no legal expenses that are not paid for by the government. This is a social integration function that is a government responsibility.

Welcome to Soviet America.
The legal system in the hands of the state.

Yes. Sometimes goes by the name of "Corporatism".

The Unconscious Civilization (1995), Saul traces the rise of individualism in the West, but complains that the term has been “hijacked” in modern times:

“Nowhere…was the individual seen as a single ambulatory centre of selfishness. That idea of individualism, dominant today, represents a narrow and superficial deformation of the Western idea….[We are] a society addicted to ideologies – a civilization tightly held at this moment in the embrace of a dominant ideology: corporatism…[It] causes us to deny and undermine the legitimacy of the individual as a citizen,…which leads to our adoration of self-interest and our denial of the public good….The overall effects on the individual are passivity and conformity in those areas which matter and non-conformism in those which don’t.”

When government and business interests become indistinguishable.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:The viewpoint of the AEP is that any case accepted for adjudication, whether it be criminal or civil, should be handled by impartial attorneys appointed by a private firm and paid for by the government, and judged by a professional jury appointed by a private firm and paid for by the government. There are no legal expenses that are not paid for by the government. This is a social integration function that is a government responsibility.

Welcome to Soviet America.
The legal system in the hands of the state.

A legal system by definition is in the hands of the state.