Why do juries get it right?

I’ve discussed this before, but it has a deeper connection after reading Sherry Olson’s account of medieval life.

Juries are the LAST leftover of Natural Law in governing. In 1300 most governance was Natural Law. The Endarkenment hadn’t filled us with “self-evident” vicious lies about equality and rationality. Written laws were almost entirely local, along the same lines as HOA rules or the House Rules of lodges or fraternities. The rules adapted naturally to fit circumstances. They didn’t have to wait 8 years for the next fake “party switch” in a distant legislature.

Natural Law is another name for the intertwined feedback loops of a closed circle of people, just as Life is another name for the intertwined feedback loops of a closed circle of cells.

Natural Law seeks equilibrium, attempts to balance the equation. Life does the same thing. That’s the whole point of negative feedback.

Juries still implement Natural Law, despite centuries of official disapproval. The endarkenment calls Natural Law by the blasphemous inverted insult of “nullification”.

Everything is upside down in endarkenment rules. Juries are nullifying, but not the way NYC means it. Juries are breaking down the artificial inequality imposed by the NYC endarkenment. Juries are restoring the balance, or in engineering terms nulling the balance. Feedback mechanisms always attempt to balance an equation, pulling against the unwanted error signal to reduce the imbalance to zero. Natural law in medieval form attempts to pull back the injustice imposed by a criminal and restore property and freedom to the victim. Endarkenment law doesn’t change either side of the imbalance, it only holds the criminal in a special place for a while. Now, thanks to Sorosian prosecutors, the “while” is usually a few hours.

See item below for a fuller discussion of nulling a balance in physical form.

= = = = =

Footnote for fairness: In the modern setup, where only 2% of cases actually reach trial, juries are almost bound to do the right thing. As mentioned before, defendants who INSIST on a jury are overconfident gamblers and fools. Competent lawyers want to settle or plead before a trial starts. If the criminal ignores good advice and insists on a jury, he WILL lose. Fuck around and find out.