Comment: Juries (Post 4)

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I appreciate your comments (see in situ)

Juries (Post 4)

PS: I think you are misunderstanding juries. Juries are not a "democratic body" organized to form a majority consensus. They are, in fact, exactly opposite. They are highly undemocratic.

In a "democratic process" the majority makes law. Laws are an authorization to use force within society.

On a jury, a verdict must typically be unanimous in order for the force of law to be applied to the defendant. In other words, a tiny minority (only 1 person) can prevent force from being used. Further, in a libertarian society (and technically still even in the United States) a jury can rule not only on the guilt of the defendant, but on the justice of the law itself (jury nullification)!

The whole point of this exercise is to reduce the chance that a mistake will be made, and that force will be used wrongfully. Implicit in this process is the idea that "it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be punished."

It is self evidently true that it is more difficult to convince 2 people that someone is guilty than to convince only 1 person. And it is more difficult to convince 3 than 2, and so on.

Philosophy cannot tell us the "correct" number of jurors. That is determined empirically. However, philosophy can tell us that having juries reduces rather than increases the possibility of violating the NAP egregiously, and using force wrongfully.