NationStates Jolt Archive

In the instance of arrest and trial we see a growing number of declined requests for jury trials because of government budgets. The option between judge vs. jury is slowly becoming leaned towards judges.

A jury trial as it stands is a right, but the problem is actually getting the jury. Government can't afford to grant everyone a jury because funding is far too low at this moment. With this proposal we allow those who request a jury be fairly trailed under their preference, rather than under the mercy of government budgets.

If we increase funding for trials we will see the right to a fair trial actually realized.

Juries are far too easily influenced by emotional arguments rather than by evidence.

Some countries prefer to create tribunals formed by knowlegeable magistrates, and thus reject citizen juries.

Juries are far too easily influenced by emotional arguments rather than by evidence.

Some countries prefer to create tribunals formed by knowlegeable magistrates, and thus reject citizen juries.

Juries also tend to be very liberal and heavily biased. A good lawyer is one who appeals to the bias of the jury. Maybe we could work to outlaw lawyers instead?

In the instance of arrest and trial we see a growing number of declined requests for jury trials because of government budgets.

We do? In which countries? Certainly not in countries which are members of the United Nations; in all of those, it would be illegal for anyone to turn down a request for a trial by jury (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Definition_of_%27Fair_Trial%27).


With this proposal we allow those who request a jury be fairly trailed under their preference

That's already the case.


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Juries also tend to be very liberalUm... so a random selection of citizens will always produce those with liberal views? Even in conservative countries?

Um... so a random selection of citizens will always produce those with liberal views? Even in conservative countries?

Yes, juries will almost always be more liberal than magistrates or judges who have sat on courts for half thier life time.

OOC: Would such a proposal even be legal? It appears to contradict proposal #47, by saying that the latter has no effect.

Yes, juries will almost always be more liberal than magistrates or judges who have sat on courts for half thier life time.

I hate to be rude, but there is absolutely no truth in that statement. A liberal magistrate or judge can be on the bench for half their lifetime just as easily as a conservative one can. It happens all the time. In Altanar, the 5th District Court of Ael Khalas, for example, is widely considered by legal experts to be far more liberal than, say, the 7th District Court of Nalioka. They seem to have equal longevity on the bench.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus and Advisor

Canada1337

Please allow me to make some remarks about your comments.

In the instance of arrest and trial we see a growing number of declined requests for jury trials because of government budgets. The option between judge vs. jury is slowly becoming leaned towards judges.

A jury trial as it stands is a right, but the problem is actually getting the jury. Government can't afford to grant everyone a jury because funding is far too low at this moment.

Perhaps this is the case in your nation, and perhaps it is even the case in hundreds of NSUN members. I can assure you, however, that this is not the case in Logopia. Further, I have to question that it is actually the case in a majority of the current +20,000 UN members.

With this proposal we allow those who request a jury be fairly trailed under their preference, rather than under the mercy of government budgets.

I have to question if this proposal would actually do anything. The proposal does not really mandate or even suggest an action to member states. It only contains some rhetoric and then says that "If we increase funding for trials we will see the right to a fair trial actually realized.". As respectable as that opinion might be, simply stating it in a UN resolution amounts to nothing.

As a final note, we would be much more inclined to support the proposal if it were clear as to why this matter is worthy of international legislation. I am not saying that it definitely isn't, but at first glance it seems like an issue in which UN intervention is not needed or beneficial.




----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

I hate to be rude, but there is absolutely no truth in that statement. A liberal magistrate or judge can be on the bench for half their lifetime just as easily as a conservative one can. It happens all the time. In Altanar, the 5th District Court of Ael Khalas, for example, is widely considered by legal experts to be far more liberal than, say, the 7th District Court of Nalioka. They seem to have equal longevity on the bench.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus and Advisor

But its more likely that a judge who has been involved in politics and court for twenty years will be conservative.

But its more likely that a judge who has been involved in politics and court for twenty years will be conservative.
No judge should ever be involved in politics, in our opinion. That way lies the certainty of bias.

But its more likely that a judge who has been involved in politics and court for twenty years will be conservative.

And why is that? It seems Ambassador Krytellin's point still stands. I do not understand why you are equating experience in service with conservative leanings. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. You seem to insist that the majority of judges who on their first day on the job have liberal leanings will inevitably change after a few years, but you don't say why, you don't give any examples, and when your claim is challenged you simply repeat it as if that were a defence.

- Gordon Tills, Roseariean Ambassador.

And why is that? It seems Ambassador Krytellin's point still stands. I do not understand why you are equating experience in service with conservative leanings. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. You seem to insist that the majority of judges who on their first day on the job have liberal leanings will inevitably change after a few years, but you don't say why, you don't give any examples, and when your claim is challenged you simply repeat it as if that were a defence.

- Gordon Tills, Roseariean Ambassador.

The definition of conservative is to not change. If you have somebody in court that was appointed by an offical twenty years ago, which is often the case in countries without trial by jury, then in twenty years that judge will most likely have the same core beliefs he held twenty years ago. Thus he is a conservative, as political thought and the definition of progressiveness and liberalism have changed over time.