Trevor Watkins 30/7/24
The Individualist Manifesto suggests a jury system for resolving disputes and grey areas within a community. This is probably the most contentious of the 4 components in the manifesto, so I am writing this article to help explain and clarify this issue.
Job 5:7 says that “Man is born to trouble as surely as the sparks fly upward”. Things fall apart. Conflicts always arise. In the past conflicts were resolved by the king, or through warfare. Nowadays they are resolved by courts and judges appointed by politicians in government. This critical function has been moved beyond the control of the individuals involved in the dispute. When other avenues such as compensation and apology have failed, I suggest that conflicts between individuals should be judged by other individuals using the tried and trusted jury system.
How will it work?
One individual or group declares to another individual or group that a dispute exists.
Being good individualists, the disputants mutually agree to settle the dispute using the jury system proposed in the Individualist Manifesto, to minimise conflict and costs.
Jury duty is voluntary. Commonly members of the jury will be selected by the disputants.
The size and composition of the jury must be consented to by both parties to the dispute. If agreement on a jury cannot be reached in a reasonable time (7 days, for example), both sides select six jurors, and a foreman with a casting vote is chosen by random lottery of the jury members.
Because it is a matter of chance as to which side obtains the casting vote on the jury, it will be important for both sides to select jurors committed to acting on the merits of the case, rather than jurors blindly supporting the side which appointed them.
The members of the jury alone determine the rules for the hearing.
They may be guided by well-established rules of legal procedure and evidence, but they are not bound by it.
They may appoint a judge or judges to guide them.
They may invite or allow lawyers to represent the parties.
They may allow witnesses, cross-examine them, conduct investigations, seek the opinion of experts, or do whatever is required to reach a decision.
Jury decisions are made by a simple majority vote plus one.
They will be funded equally by the parties to the dispute during the hearing, but may finally decide on any allocation of costs they see fit.
Any jury decision may be appealed to another jury until one side or the other has 3 identical decisions in its favour. Thereafter the jury decision becomes binding upon both parties to the dispute, and is added to the set of legal precedents for that community which defines their common law.
I believe that a class of professional, impartial jurors will arise whose primary asset will be their reputation for fair decisions. This class of jurors will provide the pool from which most parties to a dispute will make their jury selection.
Because jury decisions are made by a simple majority vote plus one, at least one juror must renounce loyalty to the litigant who chose him.
Benefits
Juries will be local and decentralised. Bad decisions will have immediate consequences visible to the community
Because they are local, a jury will reflect the standards and customs of the community in which it is based.
Conflict and costs will be reduced.
Access to justice will not be denied because of wealth or position.
Endless expensive delays will be reduced
By participating directly in the justice system, citizens exercise their freedoms and duties in a tangible manner.
Challenges
There's the risk of local biases influencing decisions, which could undermine the libertarian ideal of impartial and fair justice. Each side selects its own jurors, which should minimise this.
The potential for injustice always exists even in the best systems, as the New York judiciary currently illustrates.
The Individualst Manifesto and the HarmConsentRule constitute the legal framework within which the jury operates. This may not be acceptable to all.
