Legal Definition of Peer
Thus, the legal definition (the more diverse a group is, the better) is roughly the opposite of how the word is used in non-legal environments (the more exclusive and equal the group, the closer they are). Has it always been like this? What arguments are put forward to confirm this strange interpretation? And how does it work in borderline cases? Are citizens considered peers of foreigners, or do you have to send strangers to present themselves as a jury for a non-citizen (or maybe they don`t have that right at all)? PEER. Equal. A man`s peers are his equals. A man must be judged by his peers. 2. In England and other countries it is a title of nobility; than the peers of the empire. In the United States, this equality is not so much political as civil. A man who is not a citizen must nevertheless be brought to justice by the citizens. n. a guaranteed right of defendants, in which “peer” means “equal”.
This has been interpreted by the courts to mean that the available juries include a wide range of the population, particularly of race, national origin and gender. Jury selection should not include a procedure that excludes jurors of a particular race or deliberately limits the range of possible judges. This does not mean that women`s women, Asians or African Americans African Americans should be brought to justice. People who are the same in terms of age, education or social class, group, colleague, etc., as in peer group or peer-to-peer social processes I was wondering how the word “peers” was legally defined as it is. The notion of a peer for jury purposes is someone who “puts himself in the same place” as the defendant or litigants. A Freeman must be judged by other Freemen, a Peer of the Realm by other peers (capital P), a Landsman by other landowners, and a Marine by other sailors. But Wikipedia provides this definition for non-legal use: in a legal context, peer refers primarily to anyone who is an adult citizen, as in “a jury of peers.” In general, a peer jury is a random selection of other citizens from a similar geographic location. These persons do not necessarily share the same characteristics as a defendant. Therefore, there is no guarantee that persons hearing a defendant`s case will be of a similar age, race, socioeconomic background or gender to the defendant, although these characteristics alone cannot disqualify someone from jury service. N. an equal.
A “jury of peers” to which accused persons are constitutionally entitled is an impartial group of citizens of the judicial district (e.g., county) where the defendant lives. This does not mean that a jury is ethnically, educationally, economically or sexually identical to the accused, although some jurisdictions attempt to meet these criteria. See: Jury of Peers) In feudal law. Vassals of a lord who sat in his court as judges of their fellow vassals and were called “peers” as if they were equal to each other or had the same status. The nobility of Great Britain, the Lords having secular seats in Parliament and including dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts and barons. Equal; those who have a rank and position equal to that of a human being; This is the meaning of the term “trial by a jury of peers.” legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com says that the word is legally interpreted as follows: In the United States, we have codified and defined social definitions such as peerage and royalty and owned/indentured vs. free. We are therefore all, to the extent that the law defines it, equal. A person`s peer is someone who is equal to that person, usually of an age, social status, or similar.
Peer can also refer to someone who has the same profession as another person. For example, many experiments, studies or articles in certain fields must be peer-reviewed to be considered credible. Rather, the work should be reviewed by other experts in a particular field to ensure that their presumed conclusions are accurate. The ancient origins of a jury verdict were rooted in the elimination of the accused`s allegations of unfair trial, since the accused himself was involved in selecting those who would evaluate his actions before the law and impose sentences, the accused could trust that he would not be tortured. Supported by Black`s Law Dictionary, Free 2nd ed., and The Law Dictionary.