The "ideal" jury is comprised of people who are most likely to agree with
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Bradbury" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2000 12:55 AM
Subject: LAW: Problems with Juries [was: A modest proposal]
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Evan Brown wrote:
> > But, I can't
> > imagine a better way, though as Eliezer invariably reminds us (and
> > so), there _is_ a better way. Our obsession with finding and retaining
> > sterile jury is a noble intent, but impossible in reality.
> Well, in "current" reality it seems difficult, but in future reality
> an "eJury" would do the trick. Just copy "uploaded" minds selected
> for Jury duty. Have the trial. When situations arise where things
> need to be "ignored", you just do a "rollback" (database terminology) to
> the time prior to the occurence of those things that need to be ignored.
> As was observed by Baily in "After Thought" the problem is that
> normal humans don't have a delete key. We can fix that.
> Now, of course one gets into the question of what would make an
> "ideal" eJury. Since you could have the selection of any ePerson
> that ever existed, what would be an "ideal" jury?
> Would you want a jury of people who are highly trained legally
> (say GBurchN/former supreme court justices?) or a jury of people
> with more experience with the everyday reality, albeit, those
> demonstrating a high capacity for rational thought (say EvMick clones),
> or would you want people highly trained in scientific analysis or
> the intricacies of rational thought (say some Nobel prize winners
> or Robert Owen types)?
> I've always thought one of the interesting *nits* in the legal
> system is the concept of Judgement by one's "peers". Does that
> mean that I get a jury of Extropians? Or do I get a jury where
> most of the people watch Days of our Lives, Jerry Springer
> and WWF all day?
> Things that make you go hmmmmmm....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:30 MDT