Tim Romano wrote:

>>
>>
He talks about trial by a jury of peers.  His emphasis -- as one might
expect -- on peers, actually on the difficulty of finding peers who would be
able to judge his actions. What do you make of the concept of "peers" in the
american system of individual rights, by the way?
>>
>>

Strange that you mention this right now.  I wss a bit shocked to discover
that Britain is very sharply cutting back on jury trials, according to a
recent statement by the PM.  Blair's justification:  a recommendation that
such cuts will save money which can be used to hire more police.  There
seems to be little concern on his part whether this will produce a more just
system of rendering verdicts.

I am in favor of trial's by a jury of one's peers, which I take to mean
ordinary citizens' who are not chosen on the basis of their birth, race,
social status, gender, or level of wealth.  I understand that too many
premptory challenges are allowed, and that "average" citizens can make
mistakes.  But so can judges and lawyers.  Trial by a jury of one's peers
is, in my view, the best system for rendering verdicts in a democractic
society.  In fact, in the US, the jury system seems to ensure that the
judiciary branch is the only branch which is (relatively) untouched by
corruption attendant on the plutocratic power.

I have heard that the French system, which does not rely and heavily on jury
trials, works quite well.  But I am still hesitant to endorse the
elimination of jury trials (except where that may be the choice of the
accused, as the US system sometimes allows).

Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com