I was asked the other day whether I support the use of random-citizen juries in courts. Obviously I explained that I’d rather have a private court system and then let the courts decide how they reach judgements (and I further speculated that private courts would probably not use such juries but would instead hire experts).
But then I was asked if, given that courts are currently run by the State, I support random-citizen juries for the time being, i.e. if the State announced that it was abolishing jury service today (and that from now on it would hire experts to pronounce judgments), would I see that as a good thing or not.
I said that I thought jury service provides some check on State power, and for this reason, I support it so long as the State runs the courts. But it occurred to me how similar this is to another argument: that while we have a State, it should be democratic (rather than monarchial). It is often said that democracy provides a check on State power, too, and yet I believe a monarchy to be superior (for the reasons Hoppe does).
So, just wondering what people here think of this. While we have a State, is it better to have random-citizen juries (and if so, why), or would it be better to have the State using hired experts?
I don’t see what incentive a random jury would have to render a truthful verdict. It seems that professional jurors would be superior because they would have to maintain a reputation for rendering truthful verdicts in order to continue being hired onto juries.
well the problem here is you’re talking about “expert juries”, not “a free market for jurors”.
who is considering these jurors “experts” and who is hiring them, and for what reason?
@ Mises Pieces
I suppose the argument would be that if the jury felt the case in question was a ‘non-crime’ like possession of drugs, they could acquit the accused and thus prevent an aggression by the State. Whereas a hired expert would tend to apply the letter of government laws, so would be more likely to give a guilty verdict and thus not prevent an aggression by the State.
It’s not that a random jury would have more incentive to be truthful (I agree with you, an expert would have more incentive to be truthful); it’s that a random jury has more incentive to decide to ignore the State’s unjust laws - since they are making a one-time only decision, they can go with their consciences rather than having to keep the State sweet so they get hired again.
@ kash-money
They would be hired by the State, in much the same way judges are. In fact, we could just say the judges make the decision, rather than a jury.