But, I think there's good reason to have the approximate rank of the person determine the approximate rank of the jurors, e.g., lay for a layman, priests for a priest, bishops for a bishop. That still leaves room for collecting jurors for Curial officials, for example, from diocesan bishops, while maintaining …
But, I think there's good reason to have the approximate rank of the person determine the approximate rank of the jurors, e.g., lay for a layman, priests for a priest, bishops for a bishop. That still leaves room for collecting jurors for Curial officials, for example, from diocesan bishops, while maintaining a rather old tradition regarding who judges whom. You don't want a good 'ol boys network, and you also don't want to risk deference for clerics overriding respect for justice.
And assuming a public trial, the court of public opinion can try the jurors afterwards.
I agree on the public trial.
But, I think there's good reason to have the approximate rank of the person determine the approximate rank of the jurors, e.g., lay for a layman, priests for a priest, bishops for a bishop. That still leaves room for collecting jurors for Curial officials, for example, from diocesan bishops, while maintaining a rather old tradition regarding who judges whom. You don't want a good 'ol boys network, and you also don't want to risk deference for clerics overriding respect for justice.
And assuming a public trial, the court of public opinion can try the jurors afterwards.