Attorney Carl Drill dancing on the grave of juryordninga. We have to hope it not is grave to rettssikkerheta. The decision of the jury in the case against Eirik Jensen lacks logic, writing Drill in Aftenposten in a sermon which is riddled with logical holes.
basically it is understandable that many reacted as Drill: How can Jensen be guilty of corruption if he has not participated in it, he got paid for, namely the smuggling of drugs?the Police must be fully investigated now the Manager
But we can not know what the jury thought when it has not given any justification. What if it thought it was corrupt of Jensen to take a shower and clock because he should have understood that the funds came from criminal activity? It doesn't have to mean that he knew about or contributed to the drug trade. Maybe should Drill drilled deeper.
"A suitable period for juryordninga", raljerer him. He believes fagdommernes statement that Jensen "undoubtedly guilty", is enough to establish that the jury was wrong. Without that, he explains why. Talk about the presentation of evidence. The Drill and fagdommerne in practice say, is: We are lawyers and know better than you.
Juryordninga had weaknesses, but these consisted not in the fact that incompetent people were put to consider complex issues. That one shall be judged by peers is no gjenlevning from a primitive time or føydalstaten, but a democratic and rettsstatlig breakthrough that ensures enkeltmenneskets rights and raises us above the country we don't want to compare us with.Cappelen squinted morskt against the judge when she stated that before only have been said in the closed right Comment
I will reluctantly trap to a premature judgement of the new meddomsretten, but psychological studies show that knowledgeable and intelligent people are just as likely as others to add prejudice and irrational elements to the reason in their decisions. Among other things, they believe more on people who are similar to themselves. Lawyers have gladly lived orderly and sensible life, and may more easily find it suspicious if it appears that an accused has made a lot of stupid in life.
In dekninga of Jensen-case great emphasis was put on the politikollegenes irritation of the unorthodox methods and mess with papers. As if that has nothing to do with the issue of guilt to make.
A measurement would possibly have shown that intellectual raddiser is just as convinced of Jensen's innocence as more authoritarianism people about his fault. That is why we have had a jury of ten very different gjennomsnittsmennesker.Spat on the jury Comment