Yes. A guaranteed right since the Magna Carta but predates that too.
Yes. A guaranteed right since the Magna Carta but predates that too.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
It's not a human right. Equal treatment before the law is though.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't know how to tell you this but there is a world outside the commonwealth and in much of that world the judicial system is of the civil law variety, rather than stemming from British Common Law, and primarily involves bench trials. Even in common law jurisdictions jury trials can often be reserved for specific situations.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
http://www.un.org/en/universal-decla...-human-rights/
Note Article 7. Note a lack of an article about juries.
http://www.ohchr.org/en/professional...ages/ccpr.aspx
Note Article 14. Note a lack of an article about juries.
Hope is the denial of reality
Yes but I don't know how to tell you this but not the entire world respects human rights in the way we do and we're not talking about those backwards parts of the world. We are talking about Common Law America where it is a human right dating tracing back to the Magna Carta that has been adopted in its entirety by the Founding Fathers who included it in the Constitution. It is a constitutionally guaranteed human right.
You think there were no human rights before 1948? I disagree.
I don't know how to tell you this but there are many western countries, with better human rights records than the US, that have civil law systems primarily or exclusively featuring bench trials rather than jury trials. I'm sorry :'(
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If they don't have trial by jury then they don't have "better" human rights since trial by jury itself is a basic human rights guaranteed since the 13th century - and in the US Constitution since the 18th century.
If some more authoritarian nations with dictatorial histories want to be used as precedent to overturn over 800 years of rights then that will lack my support.
Incidentally while the dictator Napoleon's code of law may mean something to you, to the US Supreme Court quite rightly the Magna Carta not Napoleon is part of the rule of law and cited by SCOTUS as precedent.
http://www.americanbar.org/publicati...ed-states.html
Rights in the constitution are not (necessarily) a human right, just so you know.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
While I don't agree with Rand, I would like to point out to the lot of you that you're not doing a damn thing to make your case. A "human right" is not established by being what the majority of Western nations practice and since we're talking about a single alleged right it doesn't matter one goddamn what your aggregate rights regime is or how you think it compares to others. If you want to contest his claim, do so on the merits and not with this mealy-mouthed crap.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
By what credible definition is it a basic human right to have a trial by jury? The majority of trials in the UK don't involve juries. The majority of trials in the world don't involve juries. The basic right and the standard of justice intended to be safeguarded by jury trials can be safeguarded by using lay judges. Just as there are different ways to protect a person's right to freedom, happiness etc there are different ways to protect a person's right to a fair trial. The definition of "fair trial" can vary and I cannot see any compelling argument for universally defining "fair trial" as "trial by jury". By that definition, the majority of trials in the UK would be unfair, as would most trials in a large number of countries that are generally considered to be in compliance with the universal declaration of human rights.
Sorry but I don't buy this infantile anglocentric notion of "basic human right" being defined as "stuff from the Magna Carta". The historical problems with both English and American law eg. wrt slavery, torture etc are absolutely relevant because those problems undermine the authority of the Magna Carta and English common law as being the ultimate source of basic human rights. It's not about which country is better, it's about recognizing that countries that are equally good can have different but equally legitimate takes on justice.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The claim that a human right is something provided by the Magna Carta is absurd. There are many definitions of human rights, some more reasonable than others, but none pretend that some millennium-old document is the blueprint.
Hope is the denial of reality
Why don't you start by providing what a credible definition is of a basic human right in the first place? What qualifies something as a basic human right, that is not met by trial by jury but IS met by those things you do consider human rights? And I ask this knowing that you've been credible toward the relatively recent notion that something like "right to broadband" IS a human right.
Right now, you're just doing the exact same thing you think makes Rand's claim illegitimate, just arguing from what YOUR culture and expression happens to be, you're just not being as honestly explicit about it.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Bullshit. It's widely regarded as the origin of codified human rights in the English speaking world (which yes Aimless includes America and I couldn't care less if that's Anglocentric since we are talking about a Common Law nation).
Here are lots of links to people more than pretending that human rights trace back to the Magna Carta.
http://www.humanrights.com/what-are-...gna-carta.html
https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articl...d-human-rights
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...y-human-rights
https://www.theguardian.com/humanrig...0-years-making
http://www.magnacarta.com/content/history
http://www.magnacarta.org.au/
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/le...agnacarta.html
You may want to disregard the American Bar Association and others in recognising over 800 years of history but if so more fool you. The idea that a right guaranteed for over 800 years from the Magna Carta through to the US Constitution and through to today is not a basic right is idiotic to me. Next you'll be denying habeas corpus.
Let's blame your absurd game of assuming that any right granted by the Magna Carta is a human right. Here are some other rights provided by that document:
(10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.
(15) In future we will allow no one to levy an 'aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable 'aid' may be levied.
(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.
(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the 'fees' concerned.
That's just a sample.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't deny that other nations can have other traditions but America is categorically NOT one of them. Trial by jury is a basic right that has always been guaranteed in America not just under the US Constitution but before then even as the colonies before then had it too. Early American rights evolved from our rights not the subsequently developed Napoleonic code of law.
America could change its Constitution to remove this as a right but it would be upending not close to two and a half centuries of its legal tradition in doing so but effectively over eight centuries of tradition.
You may not like it but that is what applies to America which is the nation getting discussed. Other countries mileage may vary but those are alien traditions and alien legal codes.
And not having to pay a Jew interest is also a basic right.
I realize you've decided that dishonesty is the best policy ever since Brexit, but there's a slight difference between saying a document provides basis for rights in general and claiming that every part of that document provides for those rights.
Hope is the denial of reality
I never said that. Referencing obsolete passages that became obsolete centuries ago and have not survived does not change a thing. I said that a right that has existed uninterrupted from then through to today is a basic right. I'm not the only one to say that.
http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/alu...magnacarta.htm
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1402_e29g.pdf
You're the one who is dishonest as I never said that.And not having to pay a Jew interest is also a basic right.
I realize you've decided that dishonesty is the best policy ever since Brexit, but there's a slight difference between saying a document provides basis for rights in general and claiming that every part of that document provides for those rights.
What the hell is wrong with you? Your claim wasn't that the Magna Carta is a foundational document but that a right listed in the Magna Carta must by definition by a human right. The latter is patently false. The former is a completely different claim. Stop being a freaking liar.
Hope is the denial of reality
I never said that! You're the freaking liar, if you think I said that then please quote the words I used. The Magna Carta was first referenced by me on this page (page 9) of the thread so it shouldn't be hard to Ctrl+F and find the words where I said that. I never once uttered those words. You seem to be adopting a Hazir-like attitude to me post-Brexit but are now constructing your own straw men.
Every single reference to this right and the Magna Carta has said that it is a right that traces back 800 years through to the Magna Carta (and included in eg your Constitution), that 800 years of unbroken history of this as a fundamental right means something. Not that the entire 800 year document is meaningful including passages like the Jewish one you quote that didn't even survive the 13th century let alone make it through to the 21st AFAIK.
My view is that we have multiple sources of rights, with different levels of authority, and the status of a particular right has to be assessed based on multiple lines of reasoning. Custom is important, but, for something to be considered a basic human right, I believe it must be recognised as being integral to a just society independent of the customs of a specific nation or the ethical norms and judicial quirks of one specific culture. A right that is recognised as being a basic human right by different kinds of societies and different ethical frameworks is, I believe, more credible as a basic human right than one that enjoys far more limited recognition.
RB believes that the right to a jury trial is a basic human right. I believe that the legal right to a jury trial, in some circumstances, in English and American Common law, is just one specific way to safeguard the basic human right to a fair trial, where the concept of "fairness" includes freedom from arbitrariness and tyranny.
This can be accomplished in different ways. In modern democracies, we generally don't have monarchs and despots making laws without the consent of the governed, or making rulings without the support of codified laws. Rather, we have democratically elected legislatures that have to follow strict rules for making laws, and unjust laws can be overturned through the democratic process. Modern democracies emphasize the rule of law, and in those countries the judiciary tends to be separate from and independent of the executive. In modern democracies, the criminal justice system operates under the presumption of innocence, and those who enforce the law have to adhere to very strict rules that tend to favor the accused. In many democracies that lack jury trials, there are nevertheless lay judges, chosen from the community, that are equal--or nearly equal--to professional judges, further reducing the imbalance of power between ordinary citizens and various institutions.
Pretty much every single society on earth seems to believe it's important for the justice system to be impartial and free, in theory, from arbitrariness and tyranny. That's the general form of a basic human right recognized (again, in theory) by almost every society that cares about justice. Societies differ (somewhat) in their views on how that right can best be safeguarded, and I think we should acknowledge that there can be reasonable disagreement on this issue. There are disagreements even between the British and the American systems, even though both are ostensibly derived from the Magna Carta. The British take on the right to a fair trial has evolved over time for example wrt number of jurors, the method of selecting jurors, the jurors' role and even wrt when a jury trial is required.
Giant shrug. You should know by now that the views I express, even those I hold sincerely rather than defend for the sake of debate, change over time. I may have made such a claim in the past. However, I only recall having that discussion in GGT's thread about Finland, and, if that's the thread you're referring to, you may wish to re-read my contribution to that thread because your summary of it seems to be a mischaracterization. Perhaps I've argued differently in some other thread about eg. the EU, but I'm fairly certain I have never claimed that the legal right to affordable broadband access is a basic human right in the sense that term is being used in this discussion.And I ask this knowing that you've been credible toward the relatively recent notion that something like "right to broadband" IS a human right.
No, you're mistaken. Just as I don't believe that the right to a jury trial should be considered a basic human right, I don't believe that the right to a bench trial should be considered a basic human right. I believe that the right to a fair trial is a basic human right and my notion of fairness allows for both jury trials and bench trials. You might have made a more compelling case by referring to my recent objection to jury nullification, which is indeed shaped to some extent by the culture in which I've been raised.Right now, you're just doing the exact same thing you think makes Rand's claim illegitimate, just arguing from what YOUR culture and expression happens to be, you're just not being as honestly explicit about it.
Last edited by Aimless; 12-06-2016 at 07:32 PM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So you highly rate whether lots of countries have the same right but don't rate at all the duration of a rights existence? That seems odd to me to say the least and very Eurocentric since it prioritises a continent with lots of small nations agreeing with each other. Would you consider not having the death penalty a human right? I believe from memory you've said that before. Lots of countries don't have the death penalty but most of the world's population live in nations that do have it. How does that fall under your different kinds of societies concept?
A belief that has existed for a short time across lots of countries could be a basic human right, but might not a long-established right be one too? Why should today's mores and beliefs be basic human rights but not the past? Why should only today count?
Why should the over eight centuries of legal precedent America has behind this being a Constitutionally guaranteed right be disregarded but a lot of 20th or 21st century nations agreeing with each other be critical?
And suddenly: silence.
Where did I say the words you've falsely put in my mouth?
But answer came there none - Lewis Carroll
There are religious laws and entire legal systems that predate the Magna Carta by centuries or milennia. Should those laws be rated above the younger laws of the Magna Carta or the even younger laws of modern democracies?
England didn't begin to abolish the death penalty until the '60s and didn't complete the process of abolition until the late '90s. If we prioritize custom, we must believe the death penalty should never have been abolished--thousands of years of custom sanctioned and even mandated it.
By the same reasoning, those laws set forth in the Magna Carta that are no longer valid (such as the ones mentioned by Loki, or the customs governing who could be a juror) would still be valid and the sun would still be revolving around the Earth, so to speak.
The length of time during which a right or law has been recognized by one nation is not, to me, an important criterion. There are laws older than those of the Magna Carta. I cannot think of many situations in which the age of a law or right would conclusively tip the scales in its favor when compared to an alternative. Rather, I believe laws and rights--and indeed any matter that has ethical questions or problems at its core--should be evaluated according to those standards of ethics and of ethical analysis we can accept today, and place greater importance on those answers that can be arrived at by different means than on those that are particular to one single framework. This is not simply because I think that greater consensus is necessarily better but because I believe that when different methods give us similar or identical answers, it may indicate that those answers are the ones closest to the truth. Of course, if nothing else, broad consensus also makes beliefs easier to accept as being true.
I believe there are persuasive philosophical reasons for opposing the death penalty, but I recognize that there are also arguments that support the death penalty.Would you consider not having the death penalty a human right? I believe from memory you've said that before. Lots of countries don't have the death penalty but most of the world's population live in nations that do have it. How does that fall under your different kinds of societies concept?
That being said, though most people live in countries where capital punishment still exists, there has been a clear trend away from capital punishment in most of the world:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777460.html
Here you imply that I oppose the right to a jury trial, but I do not. I believe that jury trials can constitute one method for safeguarding the right to a fair trial according to various reasonable standards of fairness, but I also believe bench trials and a modern democratic judicial system with lay judges or the like can be another way to safeguard the same right. I don't believe that the right to a jury trial is itself a basic human right, but I believe the right to a fair trial is, and I believe that "fairness" must be evaluated according to standards that we can accept today as being legitimate and good. I believe that, for all their problems, jury trials can generally meet those standards, as can bench trials. It is you who has the burden of explaining why modern judicial systems that feature bench trials should be dismissed as illegitimate or "backwards" simply because they are not featured in some ancient document or in your own particular society.A belief that has existed for a short time across lots of countries could be a basic human right, but might not a long-established right be one too? Why should today's mores and beliefs be basic human rights but not the past? Why should only today count?
Why should the over eight centuries of legal precedent America has behind this being a Constitutionally guaranteed right be disregarded but a lot of 20th or 21st century nations agreeing with each other be critical?
Today's mores and beliefs should have precedence over those of the past for several reasons, the most important of which is that the mores and beliefs of the past were held by people who are generally now dead and no longer affected by our laws and customs and actions. They have no stake and no say. The laws that affect us today must be able to meet our current standards, must be consistent with our current (and continuously developing) understanding of the world and of justice, must be right today and preferably also tomorrow. If they were right yesterday as well, that's great, but I don't much care for an attitude that requires us to perpetuate the follies of the past simply because of custom. Someone who believes in a parliament's unrestricted right to break the promises of its predecessors, and who believes the world is on a steady march towards progress and enlightenment, should share my view on this matter.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
The problem is by any reasonable standard, jury trials are not fair (at least not in the US).
Hope is the denial of reality
Which aspects of American jury trials do you consider to be the most unjust and can they be made more just without replacing the system entirely?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They are biased at every stage: grand juries that won't indict cops and are racially biased, trial juries that are racist and sexist, capital murder juries that are racist and sexist. Juries are made up of the people. Your average person is at least subconsciously racist and sexist. What can we expect? Are you going to provide extensive diversity training to jurors?
As for specifics, juries are far more likely to convict a black person (all else being the same). They're more likely to convict them for a more serious crime. They're less likely to convict someone targeting a black person. The numbers are even worse than it comes to the disparity in punishments between men and women.
Hope is the denial of reality
ARe juries more biased than individual judges and prosecutors?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
They have different roles. How can you really compare?
Hope is the denial of reality
If a right dates back thousands of years unbroken through to those ancient religious/legal systems and is enshrined as a constitutional right today as a result of that ancient history then yes. Absolutely, those thousands of years old rights should be considered seriously.
Firstly being executed was never a right it was a punishment. Secondly I never said custom should never be overturned but that rights granted from centuries of custom should not just be lazily discarded.England didn't begin to abolish the death penalty until the '60s and didn't complete the process of abolition until the late '90s. If we prioritize custom, we must believe the death penalty should never have been abolished--thousands of years of custom sanctioned and even mandated it.
That's a rather Lemming like approach. So if your friends all want toThe length of time during which a right or law has been recognized by one nation is not, to me, an important criterion. There are laws older than those of the Magna Carta. I cannot think of many situations in which the age of a law or right would conclusively tip the scales in its favor when compared to an alternative. Rather, I believe laws and rights--and indeed any matter that has ethical questions or problems at its core--should be evaluated according to those standards of ethics and of ethical analysis we can accept today, and place greater importance on those answers that can be arrived at by different means than on those that are particular to one single framework. This is not simply because I think that greater consensus is necessarily better but because I believe that when different methods give us similar or identical answers, it may indicate that those answers are the ones closest to the truth. Of course, if nothing else, broad consensus also makes beliefs easier to accept as being true.jump off a cliffscrap ancient judicial liberties then you should too?
No I don't. Here I imply, no here I state, that we should weight how ancient a liberty is just as seriously as how many other transient viewpoints currently and temporarily agree.Here you imply that I oppose the right to a jury trial, but I do not. I believe that jury trials can constitute one method for safeguarding the right to a fair trial according to various reasonable standards of fairness, but I also believe bench trials and a modern democratic judicial system with lay judges or the like can be another way to safeguard the same right. I don't believe that the right to a jury trial is itself a basic human right, but I believe the right to a fair trial is, and I believe that "fairness" must be evaluated according to standards that we can accept today as being legitimate and good. I believe that, for all their problems, jury trials can generally meet those standards, as can bench trials. It is you who has the burden of explaining why modern judicial systems that feature bench trials should be dismissed as illegitimate or "backwards" simply because they are not featured in some ancient document or in your own particular society.
Today's mores and beliefs should have precedence over those of the past for several reasons, the most important of which is that the mores and beliefs of the past were held by people who are generally now dead and no longer affected by our laws and customs and actions. They have no stake and no say. The laws that affect us today must be able to meet our current standards, must be consistent with our current (and continuously developing) understanding of the world and of justice, must be right today and preferably also tomorrow. If they were right yesterday as well, that's great, but I don't much care for an attitude that requires us to perpetuate the follies of the past simply because of custom. Someone who believes in a parliament's unrestricted right to break the promises of its predecessors, and who believes the world is on a steady march towards progress and enlightenment, should share my view on this matter.
Getting rid of ancient liberties that are Constitutionally guaranteed should not be done lightly. It should perhaps be done from time to time but it should be done knowing how serious the change is and in the US via amending the Constitution. Not by attempting to redefine the meaning of words to circumvent the Constitution and ancient liberties.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote