Quote: (08-16-2016 12:28 AM)Delta Wrote:
I'm going to play devil's advocate here. Let's put aside the politics surrounding rape for a second... Why is enlisting a bunch of random morons plucked away from their lives against their will ever the best way to ensure a correct verdict, in any type of case?
I'm not a legal expert, but one factor seems obvious: It's a good check on persecution of a common person who is doing nothing wrong but irritating the elite. In non-jury trial courts, you would have some elite rich guy judging a rabble rouser who's challenging, for example, Prima Nocte ( Spelling?) insanity.
The average person has some decent social antenna regarding who is the bully and who is being bullied. The Bill of Rights was created when royalty still had fantasies of "divine rights", and is still valuable in eras of totalitarianism of all kinds. Many, many people have been executed for "counter-revolutionary" speech.
By old intelligence definitions, "morons" are not what you would get in a jury of peers, moron was a term used for a person of unusually low intelligence.