“Peer
Reviewed”
In the area of science and medicine, I submit
that there is a difference between “peer reviewed” and “reviewed by one’s
peers.” Similarly, in law, there is a difference between a “jury trial” and a
“trial by jury.”
“Peer reviewed,” as in peer reviewed
studies, refers to a group of similarly educated and trained
persons (peer reviewers) who have usually merited an advanced degree in
a particular field. These are persons who, based upon their past school
records, have applied to “accredited educational institutions” and who were
accepted, and who paid to attend (or by scholarships attended)
such-and-such establishments; and who then graduated, many of whom then
interned at established working institutions, whether
for-profit or not-for-profit. That is, the universe of peer reviewers is
determined by a pool of persons who are similarly credentialed; and this is
essentially the only possible universe of peers out of which a “proper” peer
review proceeds.
On the surface that may sound logical and
trust-worthy. After all, if there are no standards then how might studies (and
experiments) be judged worthy and true? What’s to keep “snake oil salesmen”
from pawning off their quackery if there exists a free-for-all instead of a
society built upon standards of trust? Yes, there is something to be said for
establishing institutional standards.
One might compare the determination of the peer
review to the system of land use known as “zoning.” Certainly a
society would prefer to have architecturally-sound buildings that are built and
placed so as to maximize safety, with uses that are balanced with both the
societal and the natural terrain, and which appeal to a community’s sense of
aesthetics. A society wants order, not disorder. (But then there
are plenty of pragmatic owners of design/build companies out there, many of
which find architects to be out-of-touch with the practical aspects of how
buildings actually function.)
But ask yourself: What happens when a System
becomes so impressed with itself, so enamored of its power and wealth, that it
prioritizes its own self-existence over the special knowledge that it is tasked
with knowing and overseeing? What happens when the love of money overcomes the
love of knowing, learning and teaching?—when pride, prestige and privilege
trump observation, critical thinking, and innovation? Do these establishment
institutions retain their gatekeeper status notwithstanding devolving into a
debilitated condition? Do government land and zoning commissions who
exceed their limited authority remain lawful, just, and therefore legitimate?
It’s no secret. We’ve all heard about how
schools, right up through the academy, stifle free inquiry and real learning,
replacing it instead with regimented rote “learning.” This is also known as
academic indoctrination. And those who are indoctrinated are
skeptical of anything outside the bounds of their adopted, dictated doctrines.
Medical schools and law schools are prime examples. These become special clubs,
closed to members of the general public—or as George Carlin would say,
"It's our elite club and you ain't in
it."
Review by one’s peers, on the other hand, while it sounds almost
identical to peer review, is refreshingly different. Review
by one’s peers contemplates the inclusion of any and all
people who are learned, knowledgeable and similarly situated to
review, analyze and judge another’s work. This includes all people,
whether they are inside or outside the specialty club just mentioned above;
they do not limit themselves to just their own preferred credentialing System.
That is, a review by one’s peers implies that those who exist
outside and beyond the closed and narrow universe of the specially credentialed
in accredited institutions are also included as one's peers. Needless-to-say
such peers are likely more open-minded, innovative, and genuinely encouraging
of novel ideas, theories and inventions; they are not hamstrung to their own
indoctrination.
There’s a huge hurdle, however, to those outside
the accepted “narradigm” in getting published, especially if a peer review is a
pre-requisite. It’s a Catch-22. And it's sad when some genius who is outside
the "academy" can't get a fair hearing.
Still, by being all-inclusive the chances are
less likely that the peers’ reviews can exile a study to that specialty club’s
pre-designated dead zone, where it is destined to languish in perpetual
ignominy. In other words, the less biased the reviewers are, the more chance
that good work and landmark studies can be recognized and triumph in the
slow-but-sure sphere of knowledge accretion so critically depended upon for
scientific and medical advances.
________________
Now let us compare a jury trial to
a trial by jury. Again, they sound identical, don’t they? But they
are worlds apart. In both instances a jury participates in the courtroom
proceedings but that’s where the commonality between the two ends.
A jury trial, as will be made clear
shortly, is one in which a jury performs more of a “decorative” role. Here, a
jury is first selected via a process known as voir dire, wherein a
prosecutor or plaintiff interrogates prospective jurors in open court in an
effort to determine bias or affiliation or any hints that the person holds
values that could very well go against its case; concomitantly, the defense
attorney is given the same opportunity to examine potential jurors. Each side
hopes to seat jurors who will be partial to its own case.
Sound OK so far? Maybe, or so it may seem. But
it is a set-up. Let me explain.
First off, in a jury trial the
government tells us that potential jurors are culled from voter rolls and from
drivers registered with the motor vehicle administration. In actual fact, we
don’t know if the former is preferred over the latter; and especially in a time
of stark societal divisions, knowing the political persuasion of a potential
juror might very well be indicative of a juror’s value preferences, even
perhaps his or her biases. This, in turn, might be good intel on how a juror
might decide on issues in a given case before the court. Also, we might
speculate, an officer of the court might consider the pool of registered
drivers as having the where-with-all to drive and to follow the rules of the
road and, as a result, might be better entrained to follow instructions than
some anarchist walker, bicyclist, or regular bus rider. Who really knows their
inner machinations?
The bottom line is that attorney litigators have
become rather adept at scoping out “malleable” jurors using the voir
dire process. Once chosen, they are instructed that as jurors they are
there only to judge the facts, not the law. In fact, the judge will
read them “the law” shortly before they are retired to render a verdict. Their
job then becomes to decide who put on the better show in the courtroom, who
swayed them as being most credible in order to find guilt or innocence/ liability
or non-liability. And because the government has stated the law for them
they never get the chance to weigh-in on whether the law itself is any good or,
if so, whether it is applicable in this specific case before
them. The show stopper here is that if the judge decides that the jury decided
wrongly he can order what’s called a “directed verdict” that countermands the
jury’s verdict!
That’s what is meant by noting above that the
constitutional right to a jury has become merely "decorative," an
empty pantomime. With regard to "victimless crimes" wherein no
third party has suffered actual harm or injury, the state rakes in fines by the
boatload—with the state itself never called to account for its presumed standing
to do that. The 2nd Amendment was meant to protect the people from
criminals and enemies, which includes protection against a dictatorial state;
similarly, the jury of one's (proper) peers was guaranteed to protect the
people from misuse and abuse by the "long hand" of law, (more
correctly referred to these days as the "legal
machine").
Theoretically at least, a defendant is entitled
to a “jury of one’s peers.” At the founding of America, one’s peers meant
people who have observed the defendant growing up, i.e., observed his or her
interactions among others in the community; it means that over many years they
have witnessed that defendant’s actions, whether negative or positive in
aspect. In fact, this was and still is the determinative factor under the common
law for gathering up a jury of one’s peers for a trial by jury.
Whether this is deemed practicable and workable
in today’s world where people hardly even know their neighbor doesn’t matter.
It can still be attempted (and yet the present-day corporate courts ignore the
common law as if it never existed; in fact, it's been quietly replaced, as
discussed below).
What does matter, as much or
more, is that under common law a jury has the right to nullify a law and/or the
applicability of a law to the case before them; that is, a jury has the
right to judge “the law” as well as the facts. (Since when has the
mind of a member of the general public been considered inadequate for
determining the rightness. the fitness, the justice of our laws?)
The jury is all important in common law and has
the final say—there is no such thing as a directed verdict. But along the way
the states and county courts followed the federal government by incorporating
themselves. (If you don’t believe that go onto Dunn and Bradstreet and you will
find the proof; you will find them registered there as corporations—and
corporations are fictions limited to commerce and impotent to act against the
people as sovereign government agencies, namely, courts of law.)
Unfortunately, today’s courts operate as if they
are owned and run by the judge. In fact, they are. Under common law a judge is
merely there to maintain the order and decorum of the court forum. But today
they operate in commerce as corporations running commercial enterprises. In
cases wherein the state is the plaintiff (being either prosecutor or state’s
attorney) the judicial System has become commercialized even to the extent of
the state and the judge personally benefiting from every criminal conviction
and/or civil win. Thus, the state, namely the courts and judges, have a vested
interest in obtaining jury verdicts in their favor. Research the CRIS (a
kickback and payola system) and you’ll be amazed at what you will find.
________________
The upshot is that peers and the universe from
which they come and the method by which they are chosen are extremely
important. In fact proper peers are critical to justice being done. Whether
that’s in the court of public opinion, as in studies (supposedly) examined by
authors’ peers, or in actual courtrooms wherein defendants’ liberty and
liability are (supposedly) decided by peers—if justice is to be done, proper peers
should hold all of the power, not the academic Establishment nor the
(corporate) government’s corrupt System.
Whenever any established institutional system becomes more self-
important than the entity that the people created and designed to serve them,
it deserves no allegiance whatsoever. In fact, anything that kills free speech,
liberty and justice deserves to be dismantled and done away with.
