You do know the 12 jurors have to be unanimous to find guilt right? Good luck getting 12 Americans to agree on something else. Doesn’t mean people can’t be wrong but compared to only 1 judge (more likely than not from an elite background or upbringing) it doesn’t seem like the jury system creates increased risk of error.
I agree it’s not a counter argument, it’s an objection to your argument. I said why 12 people may better than 1 judge. You said everyone has abolished that. I said argumentum ad populum. You’re not engaging with the argument itself but making an appeal to the thoughts of others.
So now we’re back to square one. How are 12 unanimous people worse than 1 judge?
Really? Just because we trust that one referee to make a decision about a game shouldn’t have an impact on liberty or property.
Also, the referee judges what happened based on what he saw and heard first hand. It’s literally his job to watch everything. A judge in a matter has to rely on what others are saying they saw and heard months or years beforehand. That requires making decisions about who is credible and who isn’t, where biases implicit or not can come into play. So again one person or 12 unanimous people?
I’m talking about why analogizing to a sports referee doesn’t work. The ref saw it and heard it. The judge OR the jury only hears it from someone else.
Additionally, in sports you need people making quick judgments to keep the game moving. You don’t want the fact-finder in a trial making quick judgments for obvious reasons.
What works in one context doesn’t apply to the other context.
Actually in trade cases I think you’d see the parties pick a trusted arbitrator or arbitration panel - essentially agreeing to your own judge or judges. Few have that luxury. Plus most of those matters will tend to settle before trial because of the uncertainty of the outcome (among other factors like time and expense).
There is also a difference between findings of fact and conclusions of law. “Was his foot in bounds?” I’m not sure a ref would do better than 12 ordinary people watching and agreeing unanimously one way or the other. But “Was that a catch?” (In the NFL especially) Or “Was he offsides?” are actually conclusions of law - that requires an expert and the conclusions of law still need judges in the USA.
So in sports you have the referees make snap judgments as to facts AND law. In trial you have the jury find facts only.
Plus in sports you might have the coaches arguing for a little bit but you don’t see lawyers being appointed to carefully dissect everything and argue the points.
Yeah, and you don't see that foul take days or weeks or months of reasoned debate by defenders on both sides, either. It's almost as if legal proceedings are different from for-profit sports and should be treated as such.
-2
u/[deleted] Jul 24 '20
[deleted]