Thanks for the welcome,
Voronwe.
Cerin, I promise not to quote canon law.
1. New role
I don't have much fondness for institutional authority either.
Jnyusa wrote:
Whoever is making the decision should be free to concentrate on that. Someone else should watch the procedure.
Voronwe wrote:
If we have a broad member based jury pool, then jurors would not be expected to be specially trained or knowledgable in the procedural rules, and it would be advantageous to have someone available who is specially trained or knowledgable about the rules to make sure that things proceed smoothly.
That is the heart of my concern. It was interesting that
Voronwe was one of the jurors in the Wilko experiment. This kind of process is his career. However, when placed in the role of juror, he truly became a member of the jury which seemed to focus on the subject of the dispute and not the procedure. Changes in perspective can be destabilizing.
Having someone available, "as a resource for juries" per
Axordil, satisfies my concern about resolving procedural uncertainty. I think
Cerin is headed in the right direction on what the role could be and that it may be advantageous for there to be some persistence to the role.
Another aspect is that appeals in quasi-judicial procecesses are normaly reactions to perceived procedural error, not disputes of fact. I'm not sure what the intent of an appeal is within the context of our procedure.
The ability to defend the legitimacy of a proceeding is extremely important. The irrational reaction to the Wilko experiment should have put us on notice as to what to expect in the future.
Jnyusa admirably defended the process in
Eruname's thread, but I assume we want to avoid the expenditure of that much energy after every proceeding, that we want the process, and therefore the outcome,
assumed to be fair.
Thanks for the explanation of the Beth Din,
Jnyusa. A good demonstration of how we (I) tend to think along the lines of our cultural background.
It's kind of entertaining that
Jnyusa,
Voronwe, and I are at a loss for words concerning the names for the judicial "things". As
Voronwe indicates, its because we aren't quite sure of the process to which we are attempting to map.
2. Number of jurors
The fewer members, the less confusion, and the quicker the process. Having said that, Voronwe has a point about representation and the there is also the possibility of a verdict skewed by irrelevant issues with that small of a group. I think the number needs to be odd so that a tie isn't possible. I would either stick with the current three or move to five. Beyond five seems unwieldy. The coordination and the larger mass of the discussion seem like serious problems to me.
3. Jury selection
Juror selection, especially with three jurors, by the parties in dispute, seems to encourage polarization in the jury. This relates to my assumption of fairness statement above.
Voronwe's suggestion of following the US court jury selection process seems reasonable.
I'll go ponder what we call that red flower.