02-03-2006, 05:50 PM
I do appreciate the idea of a jury of my peers based on my understanding of the original intent. This system was put in place to avoid having a corrupt government putting judges into power and lock people with opposing viewpoints away without much of a real trial.
Imagine a country where the courts are filled with "impartial" judges that have all been appointed by a ruler that HATES mauve shirts. He could have his judges sentance harsh terms for people who support mauve shirts as a way of life.
The idea is that a jury of peers from within the community would be more likely to support communal views rather than be at the whims of one person who may abuse their power.
So... I support the jury system and I wish that more people would take pride in getting to serve rather than seeing it as a bother and an intrusion on their personal time. It was the involvement of people in their community that built the US to where it is today.
Imagine a country where the courts are filled with "impartial" judges that have all been appointed by a ruler that HATES mauve shirts. He could have his judges sentance harsh terms for people who support mauve shirts as a way of life.
The idea is that a jury of peers from within the community would be more likely to support communal views rather than be at the whims of one person who may abuse their power.
So... I support the jury system and I wish that more people would take pride in getting to serve rather than seeing it as a bother and an intrusion on their personal time. It was the involvement of people in their community that built the US to where it is today.
Gullible isn't in the dictionary.