surrrah t1_iurqi8q wrote
Juries should just be a paying job imo.
NoJudgies t1_iusd4m4 wrote
You don't see how being a full-time chooser of guilty vs not guilty would be an issue? This is the dumbest take I've seen this week. Thank you.
UnaffiliatedOpinion t1_iuub6jo wrote
Username does not check out. But you’re very right.
surrrah t1_iut1kcr wrote
Yeah and we are trusting random people with their own prejudices, who have no knowledge of the law to decide if people go to prison or not.
NoJudgies t1_iut2wmn wrote
... that's the whole point of a jury. A jury of your peers, who get to decide if you're guilty. It's in the constitution. I wouldn't want someone whose gets paid to prosecute people deciding if I'm guilty or not. Do you listen to yourself?
surrrah t1_iuu2dmt wrote
I don’t trust my peers? Lol
And idk why I you think they would be incentivized to prosecute? Ideally there wouldn’t be any bias towards guilty or not or whatever.
NoJudgies t1_iuu9fc2 wrote
People elect judges based on number of prosecutions. It's sad but true. It's something judges tout to make themselves look tough on crime. If someone wants to look tough on crime, they're not going to choose innocent over guilty most of the time
UnaffiliatedOpinion t1_iuuambe wrote
Random people are going to be far less prejudiced than the people who would apply to be full time jurors.
The pay will no doubt be shit, so the only people who will apply to do the job would be people with no discernible skills, or people who are motivated by some biased agenda (“cleaning up the streets” by always siding with guilty verdict, or “defying the police” by always returning not guilty verdict, or even more complex types of bias). Anyone who has skills would sell those skills to a much much higher bidder.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments