--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/edbb0987-97fe-444b-a329-090bc8ea2aa3n%40googlegroups.com.
Hi,1) It may well be a fundamental idea that one be tried by a ‘jury of one’s peers.”The question is who is your ‘peer’Usually a citizen with with all his or her civil rights intact.Jury trials were abolished in South Africa during the Apartheid era because jurors were identified from the voters roll and its did not seem much like a jury on ones peers when a ‘black’ man stood to be tried by a 12 white farmers.If one did this in South Africa today - even though all South Africans now have the vote the notion of peers may look a little odd since our population is heterogeneous and still seems fraught with prejudice and or preconceptions.
2) Also, even though the notion of jury trials is quite fundamental, the notion that the jurors can decide the law and the procedure in their absolute discretion is NOT, in fact quite the opposite is true and such a notion has never existed in all the history of jury trials.
Jurors decide the facts only and not the law (which the judge applies) and the procedure is guided but the law (judge who guides the procedure). In this regard the holy idea is ‘equality before the law’ and the right of 'due process.’
A jury with he right to decide law and procedure in its absolute discretion is basics a lawless mob. Or a lawgiving group.Obviously if an unjust law existed a jury of fair minded people could make a ‘factual finding’ of innocence that circumvented the unjust ‘law’ and this might be difficult to to prove. This is why jury trials are usually exclude for many statutory or public law type of offences. Precisely.I’m cannot participate in the discussion of Jon Doe’s guilt or innocence as a juror, I’m a trained lawyer. Unfortunately I am not sure this can be cured :-)If there was a jury trial it would be the judges duty to explain the law relating to self defence to the jurors and the main issues of fact to the jury and instruct the jury how to act. Eg The judge would instruct the jury that if they believed John Doe’s evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he believe a deadly attack on his life and those near him had commences or was immanent and that killing the assailant was the only reasonable action in the factual circumstances, then the jury must find John Doe not guilty. etc.. [Your example is a little short on other facts so the alternative arguments on the facts are difficult to consider, so to me this would be a very boring exercise] My example is deliberately short on facts not relevant to the guilt or innocence of John Doe.This is an exercise to identify the challenges and problems with a trial by jury. It seems that the first insurmountable obstacle is to find enough libertarians willing to participate.
RegardsGavinOn 25 Feb 2021, at 10:03, Trevor Watkins <bas...@gmail.com> wrote:HiOne of the most fundamental concepts of the Individualist Proposition is the idea of trial by a jury of your peers.But would such a concept work in practice? I am keen to find out.John Doe is a security guard working for a private corporation in Baghdad, Iraq. On 23rd January he was sitting at a cafe drinking coffee on the outskirts of a busy local market. He idly observed a person wearing a full burka enter the market. A sudden gust of wind lifted the burka momentarily, revealing what looked like a belt attached with wires and straps to the midsection of the person . John feared that this person might be a suicide bomber, and that hundreds might be hurt or killed if he was right and did not act. He drew his gun and shot the person in the burka in the head, killing the person instantly.This jury must decide the guilt or innocence of John, and the sentence if guilty.The trial will be held online on Google Meet at meet.google.com/eki-kcdr-guu on Tuesday 2nd of March 2021 starting at 7pm. A minimum of 6 and a maximum of 12 jurors are required. Reply here to volunteer.The members of the jury will have absolute discretion to set their own rules of procedure and legal system, election of foreman, and appointment of judge. Of course this may be agreed in advance on this thread, if possible. Trevor Watkins will play the role of the accused, John Doe.Step outside your comfort zone. Help to test the practicality of an important Individualist principle. Discover whether intelligent individuals can cooperate to provide a viable legal system without state interference.RegardsTrevor Watkins--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/edbb0987-97fe-444b-a329-090bc8ea2aa3n%40googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/D5F6BCB9-D29F-4B8D-BD55-6E2AA40C24EC%40icloud.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Lmtd7akxrdL3JU_cbvcPe9tSLRpkWhWENA3eQzN_5MeSw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2Lmtd7akxrdL3JU_cbvcPe9tSLRpkWhWENA3eQzN_5MeSw%40mail.gmail.com.
Leon Louw
President
Free Market Foundation
work: +27-11-884-0270
mobile: +27-84-618-0348
whatsapp: +27-84-618-0348
Good discussion.Since my discovery of and conversion to libertarianism in the early 1970s, the libertarian jury meme bothered me. I could never find a rational explanation. My conclusion after lots of reading and discussion/debate is that it's essentially a feeling. That doesn't trivialise it. After all a preference for liberty is "merely" a feeling, an impulse, a predilection ....
Having studied law when the matter was still a lively debate in SA, I concurred with :liberal" jurists that trial by experts (judicial officers) is preferable because, as recent events will bear witness, "experts" are so unlikely to make mistakes or favour their own interests.Being mindful of risks either way -- or other options such as "lay" magistrates in the UK, and "elders" in sundry "traditional" systems -- all options need rigid checks and balances against bias and abuse. The principal check and balance on jury systems is a reliance on the sense and fairness of your fellow citizens. That is why I think there must be a critical minimum size for juries. 12 seems like a good number tested by time.In the study of "international law" -- I did a year -- one of the most interesting things is how many variations there are. Our somewhat crude discourse is -- like most analysis -- binary. It presumes jury vs non-jury. But that's far short of the real issues: what should juries decide, how should they be constituted, should they be sequestered, how should magistrates be mandated, who should they be, and so on -- many many scenarios. Those are precisely the issues our jury discussion must address.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAJcBvALooeP1ZccX4rj3TnDQybdxa4Firz%2Bvuov71J8XGiZqpQ%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2LkbXDOP%2BHqcoavHTayS%3DkpMthHo8-LrNA1%2BsnuVPBy%3DEw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/libsa/CAN6K2LkbXDOP%2BHqcoavHTayS%3DkpMthHo8-LrNA1%2BsnuVPBy%3DEw%40mail.gmail.com.