How do you discover Truth? It depends. A lot. You have the
well-known Scientific Method where you can test and retest and
ask the same question as much as you like. But then - you have
Law. Discovering Truth in the Legal System is a much different
affair and depends entirely on where you find yourself.
Trial-by-Jury is a part of Common Law and can be found in many
countries. There are many exceptions, of course. But there's an
interesting thing about Double-Jeopardy that we hardly ever
think about: If you are found Guilty, you can typically appeal
due to new evidence, faulty trial, any number of reasons. But if
you are Acquitted (cleared of wrongdoing), that's pretty much
it. Free to go. The burden of Guilt rests with the prosecution.
It has many positive aspects; Imagine if there was no
double-jeopardy rules: if you were unpopular for some reason or
a theoretically corrupt system could retry you over and over
again for the same crime, picking different jurors, changing
parameters until you get the result you're looking for.
[somewhat like the Scientific Method in fact] If we were dealing
with chemicals or surveys, hypothesize, test, etc would be quite
fine. But you're dealing with people. Messy, awkward, people
with feelings and lives and things they gotta do each day.
But at the same time, we have a rush of new methods of Science -
especially in the cognitive science and DNA departments, among
many other sciences. And, in an even more compelling manner than
the woman who gets off from killing her kids then brags 20 years
later and goes, "hah, YOU CAN'T GET ME NOW - should've done your
job right back then!" - the new scientific methods are changing
the 800 year old Common Law Double Jeopardy in significant ways,
all across the countries that practice their versions of Common
Law. The changes in the kinds of compelling evidence are quite
interesting; although often too much Faith can be placed in
brain scans and DNA tests, as we've seen... yet it does seem to
be extraordinarily more helpful than "he said / she said / look,
there was a cigarette butt at the scene of the crime that
matched her lipstick and was her brand". Fine for its day, but
our truth discovery processes are improving. Scotland and
Australia almost seem to have an inverted Double-Jeopardy now,
where Double-Jeopardy is basically allowed, except in minor
crimes. I'm neither for or against any of this; I'm not nearly
smart enough to know "what's right". But the differences between
countries are interesting to me; and I think the Scientific
Method is, indeed, finding its way into Court Systems, bit by
bit, around the world in a way. The future should prove
interesting. Will we ever have a computer replace a Jury?
Perhaps. I expect we'd start seeing a panel of Scientific
Experts entirely replacing the Jury System first. A piece of me
still likes the "jury by peers" idea though; even with all of
its problems. Are communities responsible for their own members?
