By definition eliminating juries is a move toward an authoritarian state.
EDIT: Sorry if this came across "absolutist". I'm saying transferring power upward from the jury to the judge is a step towards centralizing power. That is true by inspection.
But I'm not saying that eliminating juries is, by itself, the whole slippery slope to losing freedom. I'm not even saying that having juries is necessary for freedom. I'm saying it's one safeguard. It's important where I live.
When I see juries in American movies it always seems like a bit of an joke and manipulating them is a common plot theme. Just very random, the opposite of what I expect from an justice system. Many non-authoritarian states don't use them. Most of Europe and India for instance.
Maybe for the UK it would be an authoritarian move, but I can definitely say that the other European states which don't use juries seem to me less authoritarian than the UK is - even as of today. Maybe the problem at the root is the mistrust people already have in the UK system? Because if we're only afraid of stereotypes, they wouldn't be worse for a judge than for a jury.
I would not be surprised to see the UK enact something like the Ottoman millet system, and grant semi-autonomy to its various ethnic and religious communities to run their own internal affairs. I don't think this would be a good move, but doesn't seem too unlikely at this stage.
My initial thought about juries is that they are inherently more fair, as they represent the people.
Change always happens in the public, which then causes people to vote a certain way, which then changes the laws.
So you end up in situations where what you did is wrong by law, but you get a better outcome because of the jury, as the jury is the public, as opposed to a judge, and usually well-paid, meaning quite disconnected from the 'common man'. In the US for example judges are elected, which means they should represent the public better.
11 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 31.2 ms ] threadEDIT: Sorry if this came across "absolutist". I'm saying transferring power upward from the jury to the judge is a step towards centralizing power. That is true by inspection.
But I'm not saying that eliminating juries is, by itself, the whole slippery slope to losing freedom. I'm not even saying that having juries is necessary for freedom. I'm saying it's one safeguard. It's important where I live.
Change always happens in the public, which then causes people to vote a certain way, which then changes the laws.
So you end up in situations where what you did is wrong by law, but you get a better outcome because of the jury, as the jury is the public, as opposed to a judge, and usually well-paid, meaning quite disconnected from the 'common man'. In the US for example judges are elected, which means they should represent the public better.
So it's not as black and white.