Jury Duty

Showing only #3339 and its comments.

See full discussion
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
Benjamin Davies revised 15 days ago·#3339
2nd of 2 versions

Maybe juries can be done away with. Not all levels of courts have juries, so they mustn’t be fundamental.

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

I think having a jury of your peers is important in criminal cases and they shouldn’t be done away with. Juries protect the accused from abuse of authority and unjust laws.

Criticism of #3339
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

mustn’t

Maybe this is the non-native speaker in me, but do you mean ‘can’t’? I thought ‘mustn’t’ means ‘may not’: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/must_not

Criticism of #3339Criticized1
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
Benjamin Davies revised 11 days ago·#3367
4th of 4 versions

This might be a difference in dialect. In New Zealand (and I assume other places, like maybe Australia, UK and Ireland) it is common to use ‘must not’ to mean:

a) ‘ Is forbidden to’ (the meaning you are familiar with),

or

b) ‘necessarily cannot’, usually in a deductive way.

Example: “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he must not be home then.”

This is much more natural to me than “His shoes aren’t here. I guess he cannot be home then.”

Criticism of #3342