Hacker News Reader

Comment by renewiltord | Hacker News Reader

It’s important to follow due process. We need more checks and balances, not fewer. Ideally, any accusations like this should first go through a careful examination by a jury of one’s peers rather than just being posted willy nilly.

We need to follow the process. And the process should be extensive. This is a problem of not enough process. Ideally, we could have more.

View on HN

> Ideally, any accusations like this should first go through a careful examination by a jury of one’s peers rather than just being posted willy nilly.

Does Norway even have juries? At least in Sweden we don't have any juries in court (and the two countries tend to be more similar than not), so while the overall comment sounds fitting (and I agree), some details seem to miss the detail of what country this is about :)

Both Norway and Sweden have Lay Judges in the lower courts (which is little more than voluntary juries):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judge

Nämndemän (Lay Judges) are nothing like juries, at least how I understand juries. In lower courts (tingsrätt), those people are appointed by the city council, and the people chosen are often politically involved (yet the appointment is "unpolitical"), they're not just "randoms" who got called to be in the jury, like how I understand the juries in the US to work.

The randomness of selection is the only difference of any significance. Lay judges and juries have the same amount of judicial power and knowledge.

Edit: it has been pointed out to me that lay judges have even more powers such as interpretation of law than juries, which seems dangerous.

Haha, I was explaining how it should be. Not how it is.

Due process needs to be a lot faster and it could be. Things which warrant immediate action are delayed by months, years, or decades by wildly inefficient and slow processes that have nothing to do with someone's right to fair judgement.

We shouldn’t rush to judgment. A few years sounds like a good period of time for things that could affect someone’s life. One could argue it should take a century or more to convict people of such crimes. How can we be sure it’s not politically motivated? Only way is to ensure that we wait for political change and see if the crime is still to be prosecuted.

The longer it takes, the less of a deterrent it is. What would even be the point of convicting someone a century later?

"Justice delayed is justice denied".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com