[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 1 yearJun 5, 2024 18:04:52 ago (+1/-0)
No. Because "a jury of one's peers" is just a saying, not an actual right.
In Great Britain, you had a right to a jury of one's peers, meaning from one's economic class, which they did and may still have. Nobels would be the jury for a nobleman. Peasants would have peasant juries. It kept juries from deciding justice based on class envy or class disgust.
The US doesn't have an official class system. So, it's a jury filled with government simps and people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
Peer is a word with definitions you can look up in any dictionary. Regarding its usage in the US constitution you need to also consider the era - that has been done in courts long ago. A peer is, in shortest version, someone from your community who has equal status as you, ie not a government official or someone flown in from some other place.
At the time of writing of the US Constitution many criminal trials were decided by "juries" but they would be a committee of local council members or judges and shit like that.
[ + ] Anotherone
[ - ] Anotherone 1 point 1 yearJun 5, 2024 18:03:13 ago (+1/-0)
Often it is people selected by voter registration where some social factors are available and said to be used.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 1 yearJun 5, 2024 18:04:52 ago (+1/-0)
In Great Britain, you had a right to a jury of one's peers, meaning from one's economic class, which they did and may still have. Nobels would be the jury for a nobleman. Peasants would have peasant juries. It kept juries from deciding justice based on class envy or class disgust.
The US doesn't have an official class system. So, it's a jury filled with government simps and people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
[ + ] Empire_of_the_Mind
[ - ] Empire_of_the_Mind 1 point 1 yearJun 5, 2024 19:08:21 ago (+1/-0)
At the time of writing of the US Constitution many criminal trials were decided by "juries" but they would be a committee of local council members or judges and shit like that.