The Best Form Of Government, The Best Legal System.

Like I said once a while back on a message board, the best form of government would not be a democracy, but an aristocracy. Or actually not an aristocracy the way that word is used now but a true aristocracy like the term originally meant. From Greek aristokratia, meaning rule by the best. The most virtuous, the most wise, the most moral, the best educated. Democracies at some point tend to degerate into mobocracies, or rule by the arbitrary will of the mob or masses. Unless they have independent judiciaries that can nullify unconstitutional laws, with judges appointed and not elected. But even that system has some problems and flaws. So I guess a representative democracy like I described above would be best, for now at least.

But there are some ideas or concepts that we can use now. Some already exist and some have been suggested. Like I once told people, the best jury would not be a jury of your peers. IOW a jury of people with things like the same age, gender, and social background you have. Meaning a rich person has the right to be tried by rich people, and a pirate has the right to be tried by pirates. But rather a blue ribbon jury. A jury of highly qualified jurors, who are well-educated and specialize in the science the crime involves. If plants were involved, botanists, if shoes were involved, cobblers. But Supreme Court started ruling in the1960s that blue ribbon juries are unconstitutional, because the constitution guaratees the right to be tried by a jury of your peers.

Also the issue of trial by jury came up in the 1994 O. J. Simpson case. Both sides brought up a lot of issues, and some commentator on TV at the time brought up a good point. Probably sending a criminal case to a scientific laboratory would be the best way to handle it. Juries were used by George Washington's time because even then people didn't trust the government and science then still wasn't exact. Now people trust the government more or it is in our lives more in any event. And laboratories are much more precise than in George Washington's time. Instead of finding someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, they could to it to a 95% certainty. There could be oversight and monitoring of what they are doing, so no one there is accused of planting or altering evidence. And there could be transparency and openness with the public. Instead of a trial in an open court, the laboratory could be open to the public in some ways. To allow people and the media to observe what they are doing, access records and analyze how they conducted the investigation in the laboratory. And the lead scientist could announce his findings in a courtroom for all to hear, perhaps at a news conference or to let everyone know the results at the same time.