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. You may need to scroll sideways.
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
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
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
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

The other day, I heard an American say ‘must not’ in the sense you mean. So this seems to be more common than I realized.

He didn’t use the contraction, and I suspect Americans would find the contraction unnatural. But they do apparently agree that ‘must not’ does not only mean ‘is forbidden to’ but also ‘necessarily cannot’. So I was definitely wrong about this.