Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007, Anthony Towns wrote: Randomly selected juries avoid the "cabal" problem -- it's transparent who gets involved, it's not limited to some people, it's not the same people all the time, and it's a bit easier to deal with (perceived/claimed/whatever) conflicts of interest. May I be excused from jury duty? You see my aunt has beri-beri, it's St. Swithins Day and a man is coming round to look at the boiler. -- Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Friday 01 June 2007 14:06, Sam Hocevar wrote: >I'd prefer we didn't use the word "punishment", because punishing is > certainly not what Debian should do; Debian needs to protect itself > from threats, and this protection might mean expulsion, suspension or > other unfortunate measures, but they should always be means against > future harm rather than punishment for previous acts. "sanction" then? pgp5jLxkqkBOB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Thu, May 31, 2007, Philippe Cloutier wrote: > I don't like it at first read, but you may provide examples of > situations where such a procedure could be useful. In particular, just > determining "who's right" doesn't help much. As for determining what > punishments are plausible, isn't this better done by a committee > specialized in the Constitution? I'd prefer we didn't use the word "punishment", because punishing is certainly not what Debian should do; Debian needs to protect itself from threats, and this protection might mean expulsion, suspension or other unfortunate measures, but they should always be means against future harm rather than punishment for previous acts. Regards, -- Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 01:49:30AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > The role of jurors in the US legal system is not to interpret the law > (jurors are commonly given explicit direction about the standard that must > be met for the defendant to be guilty of a particular charge), but to decide > whether they are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant > has committed the acts he or she is charged with. This kind of guidance is absolutely a must for a jury-based system, as well as detailed rules of evidence. A jury trial *might* work if there is an established police that investigates the event, and an adversarial proceedings directed by a trained judge; and even then I am not convinced. Some of the things I learned with practice are about learning to interpret the theatrics of the court room, and simply to get enough experience under my belt to know how similar cases have been decided before (the legally trained judge tells us this stuff, but it's much better to know it yourself). Not sure how much of this is relevant for Debian any more, though. > I did comment privately to AJ that I didn't think a jury system without an > appointed judge would work very well. I agree, with the proviso that I don't think it will work *at all* without one, and I'm sceptical about it even with one. > Jury nullification is a doctrine that juries have the right to acquit a > defendant in the interest of mercy, in spite of actually having committed > the acts he or she is accused of. There is explicit license to do this in Finnish penal code, BTW :) The standard it sets for exercising this license is pretty hard, though. > (And as for jury nullification, try mentioning your belief in such a doctrine > some time while *in* a jury pool -- it's great fun to watch counsel scurry > off to chambers so they can discuss having you excused from the jury > *selection* process...) Sounds like you speak from experience? :) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:33:02AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:12:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Randomly selected juries avoid the "cabal" problem -- it's transparent > > who gets involved, it's not limited to some people, it's not > > the same people all the time, and it's a bit easier to deal with > > (perceived/claimed/whatever) conflicts of interest. > The big problem with juries is that the jurors are *always* newbies to > judging. In real life, I was clueless about the first dozen times I sat as > a lay judge in the district court. Without having the opportunity to do > it again and again and again, nobody can learn to do the thing properly. The role of jurors in the US legal system is not to interpret the law (jurors are commonly given explicit direction about the standard that must be met for the defendant to be guilty of a particular charge), but to decide whether they are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant has committed the acts he or she is charged with. I did comment privately to AJ that I didn't think a jury system without an appointed judge would work very well. > Of course, we hope that this sort of dispute resolution is needed so rarely > that anybody, even if appointed as a regular judge, would have a hard time > learning the job :) > (As an aside, the other thing I find really abhorrent about the US-style > juries is that they are not allowed (nor required) to write up a > reasoning. If I have understood it correctly, there is a legal doctrine > in the US that entitles the jury to rule contrary to law. This is ... > bizarre, but also not relevant to Debian. Sorry about the rant:) Jury nullification is a doctrine that juries have the right to acquit a defendant in the interest of mercy, in spite of actually having committed the acts he or she is accused of. It's not permissible for a jury to convict a defendant for a crime they don't really think the defendant committed, but try ever proving *that* kind of judicial misconduct. (And as for jury nullification, try mentioning your belief in such a doctrine some time while *in* a jury pool -- it's great fun to watch counsel scurry off to chambers so they can discuss having you excused from the jury *selection* process...) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:12:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Randomly selected juries avoid the "cabal" problem -- it's transparent > who gets involved, it's not limited to some people, it's not > the same people all the time, and it's a bit easier to deal with > (perceived/claimed/whatever) conflicts of interest. The big problem with juries is that the jurors are *always* newbies to judging. In real life, I was clueless about the first dozen times I sat as a lay judge in the district court. Without having the opportunity to do it again and again and again, nobody can learn to do the thing properly. Of course, we hope that this sort of dispute resolution is needed so rarely that anybody, even if appointed as a regular judge, would have a hard time learning the job :) (As an aside, the other thing I find really abhorrent about the US-style juries is that they are not allowed (nor required) to write up a reasoning. If I have understood it correctly, there is a legal doctrine in the US that entitles the jury to rule contrary to law. This is ... bizarre, but also not relevant to Debian. Sorry about the rant:) -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:50:20AM +0200, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote: > A 'probi viri' team should be appinted by voting IMHO, as in the DPL case. s/appinted/appointed/ -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:28PM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote: > > > >Hey, why not? A third idea: instead of having delegates or a committee > >or whatever to decide amongst disputes, how about randomly selecting a > >jury from DDs and having their word (on who's right, on what punishment > >is plausible) be absolutely final, with no appeal, ever? > I don't like it at first read, but you may provide examples of > situations where such a procedure could be useful. In particular, just > determining "who's right" doesn't help much. As for determining what > punishments are plausible, isn't this better done by a committee > specialized in the Constitution? > A 'probi viri' team should be appinted by voting IMHO, as in the DPL case. Random selection is silly. But for that, I think that an elective last resort body is a good idea. Teoretically that role could/should be covered by DPL but a board is something better. -- Francesco P. Lovergine -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Jury (was Re: Two GR concepts for dicussion)
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:28PM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >Hey, why not? A third idea: instead of having delegates or a committee > >or whatever to decide amongst disputes, how about randomly selecting a > >jury from DDs and having their word (on who's right, on what punishment > >is plausible) be absolutely final, with no appeal, ever? > I don't like it at first read, but you may provide examples of > situations where such a procedure could be useful. In particular, just > determining "who's right" doesn't help much. As for determining what > punishments are plausible, isn't this better done by a committee > specialized in the Constitution? Randomly selected juries avoid the "cabal" problem -- it's transparent who gets involved, it's not limited to some people, it's not the same people all the time, and it's a bit easier to deal with (perceived/claimed/whatever) conflicts of interest. I dunno, it's just something I've been wondering about for a little while now. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
