The Couch

Administration of Justice

Comments on Administration of Justice

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 04/27/12 - 10:21 AM:
Subject: Administration of Justice
Continuing along on the topic of "authority", how do you guys feel about the role of a judge in the administration of justice? Is it essential? Note that some countries, like the U.S., have a judge and a jury. But there are also many countries that only have a judge, and no jury. Meanwhile, you do not see any countries, that I know of, that administer justice with a jury alone, and no judge. Which system is better in your opinion, and why?

I imagine Henry would prefer to be the judge, jury, and executor of all his own affairs wink but the question pertains to which option you think would work best collectively. So you may even agree with Henry's preferred way, if that's your taste. But why does it work best in a collective sense? That is the question. And of course, Henry, I'd love to hear your thoughts as well.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/27/12 - 10:23 AM:

My first question: How come you're able to put a smiley in an opening post? I was hitherto given to the belief that I cannot use smileys, i. e. they don't work in an OP. kooky
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/27/12 - 10:37 AM:

lib wrote:
I imagine Henry would prefer to be the judge, jury, and executor of all his own affairs wink


laughing
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 04/27/12 - 10:40 AM:

"I imagine Henry would prefer to be the judge, jury, and executor of all his own affairs..."

And I am, despite the obstacles of 'law', lawyers, politicians, law-enforcers, etc.

To the question: I prefer a judge alone for a reason that has nuthin' to do with 'justice'... wink
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 04/27/12 - 10:51 AM:

lib wrote:
Continuing along on the topic of "authority", how do you guys feel about the role of a judge in the administration of justice? Is it essential? Note that some countries, like the U.S., have a judge and a jury. But there are also many countries that only have a judge, and no jury. Meanwhile, you do not see any countries, that I know of, that administer justice with a jury alone, and no judge. Which system is better in your opinion, and why?


I don't have scientific evidence to demonstrate it, but I feel that more brains together work better, especially when they have been trained for the same purpose ( Or when they are supposed to be having moral authority.)

Don't take me wrong. Einstein's place could not have been filled by a group of scientists, because he was searching for 'Unknown Truth' on his own.

By the same argument though, you might say that why not to have 10 presidents or 10 PMs in a country? But I know that you're smart and you will not say that. It's just this wild imagination of mine. That's a whole different direction and I think a bill is passed after substantial debates in houses in democracies, whereas in case of courts it is not debated amongst so many members, therefore a discussion at least bewteen 10-12 jury members is more likely to be better than a single headed(intended) discussion.

This reminds me of great movie '12 Angry Men.' Importance of jury so nicely stressed and drama involved so skillfully portrayed.

There is a story called 'Panch Parmeshwar' in Hindi by an author Munshi Premchand which highlights the importance jury and judge in village justice system in India.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 05/05/12 - 10:48 AM:

Thinker wrote:
By the same argument though, you might say that why not to have 10 presidents or 10 PMs in a country? But I know that you're smart and you will not say that. It's just this wild imagination of mine. That's a whole different direction and I think a bill is passed after substantial debates in houses in democracies, whereas in case of courts it is not debated amongst so many members, therefore a discussion at least bewteen 10-12 jury members is more likely to be better than a single headed(intended) discussion.

To be honest, your line of thinking is close to where I was headed here. I was moving toward making an analogy between whatever justice system we choose for ourselves, and likewise the style of "government", we choose.

The function of a jury, as I see it, is to surround the accused by a group of his (or her of course) peers. A diverse array of people from all walks of life who would each bring their unique perspective and hopefully, working together, levy a balanced view against the crime. The function of the judge, on the other hand, is not just to execute to law and in that sense act as an authority figure, but also to take the role of the expert in law. It is the responsibility of the judge to take into consideration the wishes and desires of society as a whole and express those through and within the confines of the law that that society has chosen for itself.

After all, when we say that someone is an "authority" on any given matter, we usually that they are an expert on the subject and we presume that they understand very well their subject of expertise and the impact such a subject has on others. This is how they come to be "an authority", right?

So the question that comes up in my mind is whether that same concept of "authority" may apply as well in government. I have recently heard it said in a discussion about libertarianism with a good friend that the libertarian approach can be likened to a justice system in which there is a jury but no judge.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 05/07/12 - 9:31 AM:

by the way, about the smileys, i didn't know they weren't working in the OP's. i often type in the keyboard shortcut rather than clicking on the icon, so that's probably how i got it to work. (you may notice the keyboard shortcuts when you click on the 'quote' icon - it converts the smiley to text form. that same text form can be used when typing a post - then the forum software converts it back to smiley when it displays the post.)
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 05/07/12 - 10:48 AM:

lib wrote:
by the way, about the smileys, i didn't know they weren't working in the OP's. i often type in the keyboard shortcut rather than clicking on the icon, so that's probably how i got it to work. (you may notice the keyboard shortcuts when you click on the 'quote' icon - it converts the smiley to text form. that same text form can be used when typing a post - then the forum software converts it back to smiley when it displays the post.)


I thought so. Just wanted to bring into your attention, because I almost always use them manually by using mouse, but I could work around by using keyboard. I knew about keyboard shortcuts becoming obvious when using 'quotes' but since I was under the impression that they're prohibited, I never gave them a try!

Strange:

A. You never noticed that they're not available at click of the mouse for the opening post.
B. I never tried keyboard shortcuts for OP, whereas I have used them for FB and other platforms.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 05/07/12 - 11:08 AM:

lib wrote:
To be honest, your line of thinking is close to where I was headed here. I was moving toward making an analogy between whatever justice system we choose for ourselves, and likewise the style of "government", we choose.



Glad to know that.

lib wrote:

The function of a jury, as I see it, is to surround the accused by a group of his (or her of course) peers. A diverse array of people from all walks of life who would each bring their unique perspective and hopefully, working together, levy a balanced view against the crime. The function of the judge, on the other hand, is not just to execute to law and in that sense act as an authority figure, but also to take the role of the expert in law. It is the responsibility of the judge to take into consideration the wishes and desires of society as a whole and express those through and within the confines of the law that that society has chosen for itself.


I agree.


lib wrote:

After all, when we say that someone is an "authority" on any given matter, we usually that they are an expert on the subject and we presume that they understand very well their subject of expertise and the impact such a subject has on others. This is how they come to be "an authority", right?

So the question that comes up in my mind is whether that same concept of "authority" may apply as well in government. I have recently heard it said in a discussion about libertarianism with a good friend that the libertarian approach can be likened to a justice system in which there is a jury but no judge.


I feel that this 'authority' thing is what makes people corrupt at times. In India, very intriguing and possibly transforming public debates are on-going since last few years regarding functioning of members of parliament and their involvement in scams. They come up with argument that since they have been elected by hoi polloi, they have a unique right to do what they want to until next elections come and they don't feel answerable to masses in between and vehemently try to oppose social activists in the line of "we are authorities beyond questioning because people of India have eleced us." A mass movement has been forming against them in the recent years and their is a possibility of seeing some radical changes in this year.

I don't consider judges beyond corruption, investing too much power in any authority or institution tends to corrupt it in my opinion and if judges are corrupt there is no place a common man can go for justice.


Libertarian approach may be nearer to a perfect justice system.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.