Jury Requirements For A Fair Trial Cannot Be Achieved - Read Why

A person accused of a crime is generally entitled to some rights, two of which in some countries are:

1. Right to a fair trial by jury

2. Right to be represented by a criminal lawyer and if not able to afford a criminal lawyer, a criminal lawyer can be assigned free of charge.

In light of the discovery of a mathematical formula that determines the accuracy of a jury vote, and that determines the accuracy of the vote that created the law the accused is being tried under, we can see new issues being brought to consideration when defining:

1. "A fair jury trial"

2. "A proper law" that the accused is being tried under.

Defining a "fair jury trial" in light of the Vote Accuracy equation implies taking the mathematical requirements for a "fair jury"  into account, with the mathematical factors being:

1. Setting the accuracy level the jury vote is required to have. Example: setting a 99% accuracy level implies 1% error level or 1 erroneous judgement per 100 trials.

2. Setting the required accuracy level in turn requires a specific number of jurors on the jury where this number is determined purely by the Vote Accuracy equation. The required number of jurors for the jury will be shocking to today's law practitioner since for an accuracy level of only 99% requires a 140000 (140,000!) jurors sitting on this jury, and as accuracy requirements increase, the number of required jurors increases more dramatically.

From these two facts alone, setting an accuracy acceptable level and the required number of jurors, we can see that a "fair jury trial" will become difficult to achieve. Therefore, a criminal lawyer using the Vote Accuracy formula should be able to dismiss a case immediately as “not fair based on established mathematics”.

3. The law an accused is being tried under, was created by a vote, be it a vote by a congress or a vote by a parliament etc. Such a vote can now be measured for accuracy and error. If that law was adopted by a vote that had only 30% accuracy, then such a law would not be expected to be admissible to a court, and if admissible, its accuracy would have to be taken into account as mathematics requires. As such, if the law accuracy was 30% and the jury accuracy is 99%, then the court verdict accuracy = 30% * 99% = 29% accuracy. This person would be tried in a trial that is limited to a maximum of 29% mathematical accuracy. Can such a trial be called "fair" or "just" in light of the new mathematical discoveries? The answer is clearly no.

4. Is a criminal lawyer not supposed to be aware of these mathematical facts as a responsible defense lawyer to an accused? Is ignorance of this mathematics negligence by the lawyer? Why hasn't a single criminal lawyer attempted to make the courts, congresses, parliaments, etc. aware of this mathematics?

It should be clear that this mathematics is similar to an earthquake of magnitude 10, as I do not know of any other way to describe it, as it hints at a total destruction of the legal system as it is currently practiced. The good news is that there are very good answers to this problem; and you have to talk to the proper persons for these answers. 

To claim ignorance of this mathematics and go on as if this mathematics does not exist as one questioner about two years ago asked about the UK system "should the solicitor bar exam be modified in light of the book A Mathematical Foundation For Politics And Law?" There was no answer, and some two years after the question was asked, the efforts seem to be, maybe if we hide this for a while it will go away, and no one will notice, and we can keep going the way it is. Is this silence intentional or unintentional because of the consequences on law and political systems? Is this a mathematical scandal or a law scandal? Are the interests too high against such revelations? And what have you done about it?