- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
I never said it did give any particular person a right to serve.
Well, yeah, you pretty much did:
The people have a right to participate in juries
If that doesn't mean that individuals have a right to serve, it doesn't mean much of anything.
The judge stated, and I reiterated, that it is a collective right - the right of the community to punish it's members.
You said the issue was:
The people have a right to participate in juries and by not being able to do so, since something like 95% of cases end in a plea bargain, there is no effective check on government power and justice system becomes one more bureaucracy.
As in, jury nullification, or at least not leaving the determination of guilt solely to the government.
Which is what all this next stuff is about:
I've spent a little time reading up on this evening and I'm pretty well convinced that the judge got it right.
First a jury trial is not only spoken of in the BoR but also in Article III Section 2:
There is no mention of the accused there, only the fact that trials are to be done by jury.
As part of the protection of the accused, and a check on the government from removing liberty and property without due process. That's well-entrenched in the English legal tradition, in which the Constitution is steeped.
Scalia and Thomas both have taken the view that the jury trial right is primarily about the community's right to punish it's members. Scalia wrote in his concurrence to Apprendi v NJ:
No, you read that wrong. Scalia is clearly referring to the jury being a check on the government's ability to deprive one of liberty. He's not discussing the jury as means for the people to exact justice on its members.