The theme of jurors as essential for democracy can be extrapolated from the given text by examining the importance of the jury system in safeguarding justice and preventing abuses of power. Here are key points that can be drawn to develop this theme:
-
Historical Context and Importance of Rule of Law: The text contrasts the Western jury system with historical practices where the elite were often above the law ("刑不上大夫") and arbitrary abuses were rampant. The jury system, with its deep historical roots in Western legal tradition, represents a crucial mechanism for ensuring that justice is applied equally and fairly, not influenced by the status or power of the individuals involved.
-
Checks and Balances: One of the central tenets of democracy is the system of checks and balances. The jury system acts as a critical check on judicial power. If trials were conducted solely by professional judges, there would be a risk of bias, corruption, or undue influence from powerful entities. Jurors, as representatives of the community, add an essential layer of scrutiny and democratic legitimacy to the judicial process.
-
Citizen Participation and Responsibility: Serving as a juror is a civic duty and an exercise in democratic participation. Jurors bring diverse perspectives and experiences, which help to ground legal proceedings in the realities of everyday life. The process requires jurors to engage deeply with the evidence and the law, fostering a sense of responsibility and engagement with the principles of justice.
-
Collective Decision-Making: The requirement for a jury to reach a consensus encourages thorough deliberation and mitigates individual biases. The text suggests that although it might be challenging to reach unanimous decisions, this collective process is vital for achieving balanced and fair outcomes. The need for consensus among jurors helps prevent rash or unjust decisions, ensuring that the burden of proof is adequately met before a verdict is rendered.
-
Protection Against State Power: A key democratic principle is the protection of individuals against potential abuses by the state. The jury system serves as a bulwark against the concentration of judicial power, ensuring that the community has a say in the administration of justice. This protection is particularly crucial in societies where the state or powerful interests might otherwise exert undue influence over legal proceedings.
-
Safeguarding Against Miscarriages of Justice: The text highlights the dual nature of the jury system's gatekeeping role—it can both protect the innocent and occasionally allow the guilty to escape. This gatekeeping function is essential for preventing miscarriages of justice, as it ensures that convictions are only secured when there is a clear and convincing case against the accused.
In summary, the jury system is portrayed as indispensable to democracy because it ensures that the administration of justice remains transparent, participatory, and resistant to corruption or undue influence
因为人性的弱点，即使陪审员是个坏东西，但没有陪审员制度，司法最终必然成为权贵的玩物。
这个程序很糟糕。也许各州都不一样。
一个更好的程序是：
陪审团有问题，把问题写在一个纸条上，让法警送给法官。
法官正式回信，再让法警送给陪审团。
这样可以往复几次。
每次，被告，辩护律师、检查官都不必到法庭。（本来，在这个步骤里，让他们到法庭完全是浪费：开车、中断工作，等等。同时让三方都不必要地紧张。）
最终，陪审团达成裁决了，通知法警，法警通知法官，法官通知被告、辩护律师，检查官，说什么时候宣布裁决。然后等三方都到齐了，法官宣布裁决。
先去弄懂，然后尝试着去理解，从开始的肤浅甚至曲解，循序渐进地向更深层次的理解进行。
首先做这样的假设，如果没有层层筛选的jury，全过程的审判到最后判定有罪或无罪，全部由专业法官行事，它有什么致命的缺点？
你作为一个juror，你有没有尽职？还是抱着走过场还是认真负责的心态？心态不一样，观点肯定就不一样。
陪审团制度最大的问题，其实也是最大的优点，就是给定罪增加了一道门槛。在保护被告的同时，也让真正的罪犯有更多机会逃脱。在清平社会可能问题还不大，但当整个社会的道德水准下降到一定程度后，犯罪猖獗的社会里，其实罪犯有更多机会逃脱，而无辜的人却更可能被定罪。因为陪审团会因为害怕犯罪分子的报复而倾向于不敢给罪犯定罪，这其实就是当今美国一些高犯罪城市的现状，并且难以改变。
因为人性的弱点，即使陪审员是个坏东西，但没有陪审员制度，司法最终必然成为权贵的玩物。
陪审员制度的荒谬。 下
说实话，男女共审强奸案，是一件非常头疼的事情。因男女对那玩意儿在各自的大脑里有着天然和后天早就形成了的固有看法和情感。如今不仅要对自己大脑里的固定观念开展批斗会。还要与女人们一起公开讨论具体细节部分。本着对被告和原告的公正。在这块道德和法律重叠区域，弄清楚哪个是道德层面问题哪个是法律层面问题。在过去几天的庭审讨论中，六个女陪审员，年龄从30左右到60多岁，几乎一致认定是强奸。我们6个男的，2个上点年纪的略表同意，但不肯定。另2个中年人。谨慎的同意但要再看看。我身旁坐着的另一个胖老弟，是个50岁的油漆匠。他自始至终都没表示过自己的看法，都是跟着众人的反应。他不内向，闲聊时他的话也蛮多的。陪审员在法庭从事期间，除了打架不行。对案子享有特殊言论豁免权。我基本上只是观察和旁听，在最后一天投票时发表了我的看法。
|
男
