Unanimous Jury Verdicts Required For Serious Criminal Convictions -- Supreme Court Rules

[One Brow]

So why not let the judge rule in the first place? My mum let my sister pick the colour for the new paint in our house when she was 16, and then repainted it afterwards because lime green was nauseating. Why let her pick to begin with then?

1) Defendants tend to be poor, and the juror's box is usually dominated by the poor/lower middle class. By contrast, there are very few poor people become judges, and I'd be surprised if there were a lot of poor people on the panels you described that selected judges. It's one way the poor can make themselves heard in the judicial system.
2) It allows for jury nullification.

I agree there are also downsides. Let's not pretend that the the issue is one-sided.

 

[Gameface]

1) Defendants tend to be poor, and the juror's box is usually dominated by the poor/lower middle class. By contrast, there are very few poor people become judges, and I'd be surprised if there were a lot of poor people on the panels you described that selected judges. It's one way the poor can make themselves heard in the judicial system.
2) It allows for jury nullification.

I agree there are also downsides. Let's not pretend that the the issue is one-sided.

Jury nullification, while not always good, is an important part of what I described as the concept that the people are partners in their own governance and are not simply ruled over. It might be the most important practical purpose of being tried by a jury of one's peers. I do feel strongly that the "we're all making these decisions together for the greater good of our society and community" is an extremely important part of jury trials, too.

 

[LogGrad98]

Comparing judges to surgeons, imo, isn't comparable. I get what your saying and all, but I think like studies have shown, experts in their field of study become less effective because of biases.

A judge could know the law better than anyone and still hate black, brown, white or purple people.

What if the judge was super Christian and discredited muslims, 7th Day Adventists, Mormons, Satanic worshippers?

Knowing the law doesn't mean you can judge alone. That would be a really ****** world imo.

You're not gonna find that with 12 jury members.

To hell with purple people. Unless they are suffocating, then help them.

 

[LogGrad98]

He can do the same. I would still take the 12 random people. It takes 10 seconds to learn the rule in question.

Especially if they are impartial. Show them video of the rule, a dozen times when it was already deemed a foul and a dozen when it wasn't, then let them decide. I think you would get a better result. Of course, that would never work for a game situation, but it is applicable to the justice system.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think the purpose of the jury of peers is to remove power from the state over the outcome that would affect individuals and their rights. The founding father had just come from a totalitarian system and saw that, with all their flaws, a jury of peers was far far more fair and just than a court ruled over by appointees of the state. Yes we elect judges but it is far more likely to encounter bias that would affect the outcome directly in a single individual. A jury helps to mitigate that somewhat by hopefully bringing a bit more diversity and seeing through the eyes of the defendant, as @One Brow pointed out, with poor judging poor, etc.