On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:30:28PM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >Hey, why not? A third idea: instead of having delegates or a committee > >or whatever to decide amongst disputes, how about randomly selecting a > >jury from DDs and having their word (on who's right, on what punishment > >is plausible) be absolutely final, with no appeal, ever? > I don't like it at first read, but you may provide examples of > situations where such a procedure could be useful. In particular, just > determining "who's right" doesn't help much. As for determining what > punishments are plausible, isn't this better done by a committee > specialized in the Constitution?
Randomly selected juries avoid the "cabal" problem -- it's transparent who gets involved, it's not limited to some people, it's not the same people all the time, and it's a bit easier to deal with (perceived/claimed/whatever) conflicts of interest. I dunno, it's just something I've been wondering about for a little while now. Cheers, aj
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
