Monday, July 22, 2013

Judges vs. Juries: Thank God for the Difference . . . and the Nation's Founders for Our Right to It

The judge who presided over the George Zimmerman trial clearly wanted him to be convicted for the death of Trayvon Martin.

Had she been the trier of facts Mr. Zimmerman would be in or on his way to a Florida penitentiary.  That also would be the case had she been successful in her inappropriate and probably improper efforts to influence the jury.

Mr. Zimmerman is free because a jury of his fellow citizens found that he had acted as necessary and appropriate to defend himself while under violent attack by Trayvon Martin.

Thus Mr. Zimmerman is the latest in a long string of beneficiaries of the right to be tried by a jury of one's peers when accused by the powers of the state of having committed a crime. That string began in America when a jury in colonial New York rejected the directions of a judge to convict, and instead acquitted, John Peter Zenger of criminal libel charges for having printed criticisms of the royal governor.

Judges as well as many lawyers dislike juries and jury trials.  They would have themselves or panels made up of experts like themselves determine the outcome of legal proceedings.  

It behooves us to reject their efforts and to remember that the supposedly expert professionals are not impartial.  They are part and parcel of the political ruling class.  They also want to do away with the popular election of judges to ensure that only members of their class ever sit on their jurisdictions' judicial benches.

Relevant to the foregoing is the answer to the inquiry about the difference between the Supreme Court and the Ku Klux Klan:

In the Supreme  they wear black robes
 and scare white people 

No comments: