Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 16 2012 @ 04:04 PM EST |
The other thing about a genuine jury of your peers, be it Peers or fishermen, is
that your life could depend on the trustworthiness of your peers.
If that fisherman was a low-life, chances are you might know whether he was
guilty, regardless of the evidence. And at sea, would you be happy if your life
depended on him?
Likewise with Peers, intrigue and treachery was rife. Loyalty and trust are
paramount. Plus, here, it was expected that the Peers would gang together to
prevent the king from riding rough-shod over them.
As for English sensibilities being different, they still are ... as has been
pointed out, we wouldn't be having this discussion had Hogan been on an English
jury. He would be in jail by now, for contempt, for opening his mouth.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|