Specialised Courts

[mistermack]

Do jurors get their expenses?
A panel of six, compared to a jury of twelve might not cost that much more. And a jury needs looking after. And the technical evidence would have to go much slower for a jury who know nothing of the subject.
Speed up the process, and the whole thing would cost less, even if a few jurors got paid.
If you save one day of court time, that's an awful lot of money.

Good luck getting what would effectively be tax lawyers or their equivalent working for the renumeration that a juror currently gets.

Well, you're bouncing from one extreme to the other there. If you're happy to have 12 people with zero knowledge hear the evidence, how come it would suddenly have to swing all the way to the other extreme, with industry top fliers on top salaries?

In any case, those kinds of people are ALREADY involved, in the prosecutions department. The cost of bringing a big fraud to trial is huge, so it makes more sense that there is some expertise on the jury. Otherwise, you could be just pissing that prosecution money and expertise into the wind.

[mistermack]

It's more an engineering competition than a sport and there isn't anything really wrong with that, it pushes technology and people watching it seem to like it.

I think most sport is pretty pointless bar as an outlet for human more violent/competitive urges but formula 1 is no worse and in some ways better as it almost certainly contributes to general engineering

I wouldn't agree there. Professional sport to me is just like any other entertainment field. Millions of people would rather watch football than opera. They pay to watch, and get their money's worth, because they go again.

Other amateur sports seem to fulfill a need. And many help to keep you healthy and entertained. So I see plenty of point in sport.
Although I don't see any point in subsidising it.

[Blind groper]

On professional jurors.
I would suggest the cost be cut immediately by having 6 jurors instead of 12, on the grounds that experts do not need vast numbers to make a good decison.

Bribery and intimidation can be guarded against. In an average city, there will be 10 trials going on at once. That means 60 professional jurors, plus another 60 on leave. The selection of jurors can be at the last minute by a computer random number system. Good luck to the gangs deciding which jurors to bribe or intimidate!

I read somewhere that, if you are innocent, you are best tried by the French system, with 3 judges, who will uncover the truth. If you are guilty and want to be found innocent, you are better tried by a jury who can be influenced by emotional and irrational argument.

[MrJonno]

On professional jurors.
I would suggest the cost be cut immediately by having 6 jurors instead of 12, on the grounds that experts do not need vast numbers to make a good decison.

Bribery and intimidation can be guarded against. In an average city, there will be 10 trials going on at once. That means 60 professional jurors, plus another 60 on leave. The selection of jurors can be at the last minute by a computer random number system. Good luck to the gangs deciding which jurors to bribe or intimidate!

I read somewhere that, if you are innocent, you are best tried by the French system, with 3 judges, who will uncover the truth. If you are guilty and want to be found innocent, you are better tried by a jury who can be influenced by emotional and irrational argument.

are

How much can trials whatever way they are done really cost as a % of GDP even compared to keeping people in prison. I don't think costs are a major factor?