Hence I said SEEMS to be showmanship, not actually is. Having actually been in court several times [twice for myself, the rest as a witness or as a juror] I can assure you it's not nearly as exciting as the media trumps up, nor is it even really the circus act, either. Our judicial system IS broken but it's not for the way the courtroom runs but rather the laws behind it; a man robs a store at gunpoint and steals $500, gets a year in prison. A CEO embezzles millions, gets 30 days, all because of the wording of the laws. THAT'S where the break occurs. For the most part, the court ruling system itself is actually pretty stable, and a person who self-educates themselves on the law in the circumstances they are in can find themselves even better off than they would be if they hired a lawyer. In fact I've been hearing more and more about people self-representing who successfully defend or argue their cases after having been told by a lawyer that it was an untenable case to make.
The problem with the judges is that they ARE going to be biased. What rigorous indoctrination process have they undergone to scrub their minds completely clean of bias? Because even the religious spend many, many years of fanatical devotion and that's only because they believe in a great eternal bliss after death, not the monotony of the courtroom. They are as likely to be biased as any other individual which is why you have to maximize the amount of people who are making the verdict of guilty or not guilty; more people means more opinions and if you force a consensus, people are going to either have to A: Bicker over their personal opinions which will get NOWHERE, or B: Scrutinize the findings presented in the case to determine innocence or guilt. Whereas one to three individuals can more likely share a bias than, say, 30 will. And if each of those 30 MUST come to agreement on something more than just their opinion...well, there you go. It's not mob justice, it's impartiality imposed through need of consensus under the threat of being bored off your ass and spinning your wheels doing nothing.
The problem with the judges is that they ARE going to be biased. What rigorous indoctrination process have they undergone to scrub their minds completely clean of bias? Because even the religious spend many, many years of fanatical devotion and that's only because they believe in a great eternal bliss after death, not the monotony of the courtroom. They are as likely to be biased as any other individual which is why you have to maximize the amount of people who are making the verdict of guilty or not guilty; more people means more opinions and if you force a consensus, people are going to either have to A: Bicker over their personal opinions which will get NOWHERE, or B: Scrutinize the findings presented in the case to determine innocence or guilt. Whereas one to three individuals can more likely share a bias than, say, 30 will. And if each of those 30 MUST come to agreement on something more than just their opinion...well, there you go. It's not mob justice, it's impartiality imposed through need of consensus under the threat of being bored off your ass and spinning your wheels doing nothing.
