Philosophy Now Forum

A jury of your peers was included in the Magna Carta to ensure you were in court with people who were from similar circumstances and would understand your actions from that perspective. The courts have entirely flipped this to be people who are literally as unlike you as possible within an imaginary legal jurisdiction.

jury of your peers "n. a guaranteed right of criminal defendants, in which "peer" means an "equal." This has been interpreted by courts to mean that the available jurors include a broad spectrum of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender."

A broad spectrum of the population is guaranteed not to be your peers. It also means that outcast people will automatically be kept outcast by being judged by those who are deeply integrated.

peer "n. one that is of equal standing with another : especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status"

In other words, the US legal system entirely ignores both the letter and the spirit of the law with regard to the most foundational check and balance of juries.

What if I have no peer?

Jest aside, the issue is definition of "peer".

If I am a red-head, do I need a jury of gingers in order to have a jury of peers?

A jury of peers does not mean a jury of without judgement. That is what we are witnessing today:

Everyone is smart, because you've abolished grades
Everyone is innocent, because you've abolished the police, and
Everyone is chosen, because you've eliminated meritocracy.

If the defendant has a prior criminal record, should the jury consist of others with a criminal past?

There has to be a limit to how alike the defendant and his jury must be.

[quote=commonsense post_id=488444 time=1610117905 user_id=14610]
If the defendant has a prior criminal record, should the jury consist of others with a criminal past?

There has to be a limit to how alike the defendant and his jury must be.
[/quote]

The limit is "peers". If you're not getting a jury of "equals" in any sense meaningful to the trial/charges, you're not getting your right to a jury of your peers. Someone's criminal past is irrelevant. Even actual, major criminals have supposedly paid their debt and are equal to any other citizen with respect to jury duty - that is, if they're eligible for it. If they're still doing time, that's a different situation, unrelated to jury duty.

[quote=KLewchuk post_id=488363 time=1610069848 user_id=20039]
What if I have no peer?

Jest aside, the issue is definition of "peer".

If I am a red-head, do I need a jury of gingers in order to have a jury of peers?

A jury of peers does not mean a jury of without judgement. That is what we are witnessing today:

Everyone is smart, because you've abolished grades
Everyone is innocent, because you've abolished the police, and
Everyone is chosen, because you've eliminated meritocracy.
[/quote]

It must be "equal" with regard to the judicial system. It's easy to imagine an individual case where hair color is relevant, just think "hate crime", but in any case, the point is that it's relevant peerage. If the courts are having a problem figuring out what's relevant, that's it's own problem. As is, they've clearly decided to dismiss the question entirely, which is an immoral abdication of their own fucking rules and basic principles of justice.