Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie
From: zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: ``they'' vs *US*
Message-ID: <325@ihlpa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 12:37:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpa.325
Posted: Thu Jun 13 12:37:44 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Jun-85 04:44:43 EDT
References: <209@timeinc.UUCP> <782@rayssd.UUCP> <249@timeinc.UUCP> <942@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23

> 
>      I was never sure just what they meant by that phrase - 'a jury of your
> peers'.  Surely we wouldn't convene a jury of rapists to try a rapist,
> would we?  Of course not.  Did the phrase arise in reaction to historical
> practices of choosing a jury entirely from upper-crust types or what?  Does
> anyone have any actual knowlege of this (or even likely sounding theories?)?
> -- 
> Jeff Sonntag

In England the wording (as also found in the US Constitution) of the Magna Carta specifies that a jury of ones peers be required since feudalism had made
the entire province of determining guilt or innocence a **right** of
the aristocracy.

Since the founders of the US were essentially european the constitution 
was drawn attempting to use as much of the good law then in existance 
as they could, ie to give the "colonies" a basis at least as strong as
the best then available and then onto this they added the things which 
they felt were lacking in existing law.

The result is the United States Consitution.

jeanette l. zobjeck
ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie