Justice, Scandinavian style

[Viking]

I gotta ask:  Why no harbor pilots?

Actually doctors are also exempted, basically vital professions where members can be called to duty at any time don't have to serve. You can't stop the trial just because a ship wants to get into the harbor, or you can't force the ship to stay at sea just because the trial i ongoing.

[Ideologue]

We do it from voter rolls and driver's licenses here, I believe.  It's randomish.

Your system is much better imho. Technically the rules say that anybody can serve, but you have to apply to serve and be of sound financial status, not appointed to a government job and not a harbor pilot. The selection is made by the county political majority and selects based on proportion (as tradition) of votes.

The problem here is that the system requires honest and honourable people to function. Fortunately the system does have these people afaik. The real problem arisises (as will happen in sweden soon enough) when a political party which has racist policies/members gets to select lay-judges and jury members for a trial of a non-western immigrant or asylum seeker. With a random jury this bias might be there, but it is not obvious, but with this system bias is out in the open. Faith in the system will be harmed since either a racist might get off because of a declared racist on the jury or a racist which gets off might still be considered guilty because there was a racist on the jury.

Do you guys' attorneys at least have the capability to strike jurors for no cause?  In theory, we can't do that for race or sex, but we can roshambo for it.  And practically, we can do it for race or sex.  Also, and more meaningfully, for socio-economic class.  We have unlimited strikes if we can show cause.

I'm not sure if political affiliation is even a valid question here, though.  I don't believe it's disallowed, it just wouldn't tell you very much.

Note that in the US, if you are really good at tackling running backs, being involved in murder is generally overlooked. Even if you kill 2 people at once!

But you have to be really good, and have a couple chumps along to play the fall guy for you - and even they won't be convicted of anything. It will turn out that two people just spontaneously stabbed themselves to death.

A locked room mystery, eh?  My nose is twitching.

[Neil]

Note that in the US, if you are really good at tackling running backs, being involved in murder is generally overlooked. Even if you kill 2 people at once!

But you have to be really good, and have a couple chumps along to play the fall guy for you - and even they won't be convicted of anything. It will turn out that two people just spontaneously stabbed themselves to death.

Given that their lives had no value anyways, what difference does it make?  Their families got rich at least.

[Viking]

Do you guys' attorneys at least have the capability to strike jurors for no cause?  In theory, we can't do that for race or sex, but we can roshambo for it.  And practically, we can do it for race or sex.  Also, and more meaningfully, for socio-economic class.  We have unlimited strikes if we can show cause.

I'm not sure if political affiliation is even a valid question here, though.  I don't believe it's disallowed, it just wouldn't tell you very much.

Note, I'm not an expert, but I have looked up disqualification. Basically you have to give a good reason to disqualify a lay-judge or juror. Technically the lay-judge or juror has to disqualify him/herself. I'm sure the presiding judge can suggest that the juror does so as well, since they do have alternates. This is a big issue on legal message boards discussing the issue here in Norway, though it does not make it into the press. Special concerns are not so much that jurors might be biased towards or against the parties to the trial (honor system ftl imho) but rather that the lay judge pool is so small and the political society so inbred that you might get spouses, friends or business partners serving as the two lay judges who might then not be willing to do as the presiding judge suggests they do.

So, no free disqualifications. You need to provide good reason. The reasons for disqualification are if you are related to one of the parties, have an interest in the outcome of the case or if you have some relationship to the parties or the case which might affect your judgment. The lay judges are presumed to be honest because of their means of selection.

[Slargos]

Ironic? No. More like "typical".

It's typical policing, yes. May I point out that your right-wing police force never bothered to look beyond foreigners or drunkards for Olof Palme's killer?

In this case, they found that a girl with immigrant parents was missing, hence it must've been an honour killing. So they followed your logic.

As for the jury selection, you can be fairly certain that no Progress Party members were in it, since convicted felons can't be selected for jury duty.

Your  your  what's teh difference. 

Well played.