Anglo-Saxon vs. Roman court systems

Just a shameless distraction from China/Obama/Gumbortion/Persecution threads.

Just to compare the efficiency and correctness of the Roman/Anglo-Saxon court systems.

First imagine:
You're playing a Mini-Mafia Game.

1 crime
1 lynch

You're in the day phase.

You ware WOG'ed because you're plain lazy and couldn't follow the rest but you can still view the thread.

You have to choose between twelve shameless bandwaggons and a trinity formed from Sasaki,Ichigo anf GeneralHanckerchief.

Who would you trust to make the right vote.Who would you trust to make the right decision time and time again? Who would you trust first?

That is what I'm talking about.

12 jurors as in American courts vs. a 3-judge comitee like in the Romanian courts


And please, no TediUs...please.

The basic principle of Germanic Law is that a free man is judged by his peers and sentenced by his superiors. In the Roman system you are judged by your superiors.

Freedom vs Slavery, if you ask me.

First:
If you are WoGed, you cant vote.

Secondly:
You can never trust Sasaki - he has obviously infiltrated the committee and are working for the mafia.

Thirdly:
Ichigo is now Csargo and will always vote Sasaki, as he should, since Sasaki is always guilty.

I guess you are left with doing nothing as you can't vote and can't trust the 3 people committee, as it is corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

First:
If you are WoGed, you cant vote.

Secondly:
You can never trust Sasaki - he has obviously infiltrated the committee and are working for the mafia.

Thirdly:
Ichigo is now Csargo and will always vote Sasaki, as he should, since Sasaki is always guilty.

I guess you are left with doing nothing as you can't vote and can't trust the 3 people committee, as it is corrupt.

---

This is basically the thread winner, in a nutshell.

Well, "the right to be judged by a jury of your peers" is something that you kind of blindly accept as a good thing.

I think the judge still has a lot of power in our court system.

Yeah, but then, according to the Economist, Britain is considering phasing out jury trials, along with numerous other countries. Most common people are far too illogical, irrational and emotional to make accurate decisions. On the other hand, what can possibly replace the jury trial? Is this another "democracy is a horrible system, but so far the best we got" type of thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Yeah, but then, according to the Economist, Britain is considering phasing out jury trials, along with numerous other countries. Most common people are far too illogical, irrational and emotional to make accurate decisions. On the other hand, what can possibly replace the jury trial? Is this another "democracy is a horrible system, but so far the best we got" type of thing?

---

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable as well.

Between Anglo-Saxon or Roman court system, I would pick Roman. The greatest legal system ever.


However, (I must confess I do not know about Romania), modern criminal law is not Roman Law. (Neither is Civil law, although this is derived to a large extent from Roman Law, most notably in the areas of German Law)
In criminal law, for severe criminal cases, in France and Belgium a jury is obligatory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phillipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The basic principle of Germanic Law is that a free man is judged by his peers and sentenced by his superiors. In the Roman system you are judged by your superiors.

Freedom vs Slavery, if you ask me.

---

Trust me to consider the British legal system slavery.

Unlike Britain, France does not have a hereditary class system. Hence nobody has any superiors or inferiors. So everybody is judged by their peers.

Laws too are issued by the people themselves, instead of having to go through an unelected House of Lords (and bishops). These laws are then applied by independent judges, with the highest court not consisting of nobility and clergy.

Furthermore, England does not have a criminal code. Laws are nigh impossible to find, except by a mere handful of trained experts, who study legal history as some sort of arcane science. By contrast, in France criminal law is codified in a Penal Code. Everybody can look upo the appropriate law. These laws are then, theoretically*, to be strictly applied by judges and juries.

(*Which is a bit outdated. Shortly after the Revolution, the legal academies were closed and lawyers abolished. Instead, it was thought that everybody should receive a copy of the codified law, to be read themselves. Judges would then simply have to look up the appropriate law and apply it.
This proved unworkable. A bit naive.

But well into the nineteenth century, whenever law was codified, there followed a period of legalism. That is, of fixation on the law, sometimes complete with a prohibiton for judges to interpret the law.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Yeah, but then, according to the Economist, Britain is considering phasing out jury trials, along with numerous other countries. Most common people are far too illogical, irrational and emotional to make accurate decisions. On the other hand, what can possibly replace the jury trial? Is this another "democracy is a horrible system, but so far the best we got" type of thing?

---

I dislike trial by jury. Medieval. A recipe for disaster.

I want laymen in the heart of a legal procedure no more than I need them involved in medical procedure.

jury trial is the best option. Far less chance of corruption

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Unlike Britain, France does not have a hereditary class system. Hence nobody has any superiors or inferiors. So everybody is judged by their peers.

---

Yeah, right. France is stratified by class to at least the same degree as the UK, if not more so. Senior positions are often friends of friends which rather makes a mockery of independence.

Trial by peers was useful when it was based in a village - the peers knew the person's character and past (oddly factors that are currently inadmissable) and crimes were generally simple.

These days many crimes are extremely complex as is the evidence presented Most would not understand the detail - I'm sure outside my field I'd quickly struggle.

I am not convinced that Magistrates on a bench of three is going to result with better outcomes though.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Between Anglo-Saxon or Roman court system, I would pick Roman. The greatest legal system ever.


However, (I must confess I do not know about Romania), modern criminal law is not Roman Law. (Neither is Civil law, although this is derived to a large extent from Roman Law, most notably in the areas of German Law)
In criminal law, for severe criminal cases, in France and Belgium a jury is obligatory. Trust me to consider the British legal system slavery.

---

Quote:

---

Unlike Britain, France does not have a hereditary class system. Hence nobody has any superiors or inferiors. So everybody is judged by their peers.

---

Nonsense, how many of your Presidents have not been collateral branches of your nobility? Further, we do not have a "nobility" like France, merely an aristocracy that inncludes people who hold hereditory titles. In any case, feudalism is not an English concept, but a French and Roman one.

It was imported by the Normans, and post-dates trial by Jury.

Not to mention, France still seems to have peasants from where we are sitting.

You've also produced a typically French understanding of "Superior" which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the Englishman's traditionally loyalty and his willingness to accept authority.

Quote:

---

Laws too are issued by the people themselves, instead of having to go through an unelected House of Lords (and bishops). These laws are then applied by independent judges, with the highest court not consisting of nobility and clergy.

---

Another French elaboration, a result of Frankish hereditory titles.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, England does not have a criminal code. Laws are nigh impossible to find, except by a mere handful of trained experts, who study legal history as some sort of arcane science. By contrast, in France criminal law is codified in a Penal Code. Everybody can look upo the appropriate law. These laws are then, theoretically*, to be strictly applied by judges and juries.

(*Which is a bit outdated. Shortly after the Revolution, the legal academies were closed and lawyers abolished. Instead, it was thought that everybody should receive a copy of the codified law, to be read themselves. Judges would then simply have to look up the appropriate law and apply it.
This proved unworkable. A bit naive.

But well into the nineteenth century, whenever law was codified, there followed a period of legalism. That is, of fixation on the law, sometimes complete with a prohibiton for judges to interpret the law.)

---

I fail to see how codification would do anything other than waste time an hamper Civil Law development.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Yeah, right. France is stratified by class to at least the same degree as the UK, if not more so. Senior positions are often friends of friends which rather makes a mockery of independence.

Trial by peers was useful when it was based in a village - the peers knew the person's character and past (oddly factors that are currently inadmissable) and crimes were generally simple.

These days many crimes are extremely complex as is the evidence presented Most would not understand the detail - I'm sure outside my field I'd quickly struggle.

I am not convinced that Magistrates on a bench of three is going to result with better outcomes though.

~:smoking:

---

There's also the issue of reasonably doubt, far less sure between three than twelve, especially if one dissents.

While I may support the principle behind the jury(even if only a little), I'm leaning towards the no-jury options simply because I believe it's been shown that educated judges make better rulings.

For example, rape cases are held with a jury. And we've had plenty of cases where jurors have said stuff like "no respecting woman would go to that party" and "she knew what was bound to happen"... :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

For example, rape cases are held with a jury. And we've had plenty of cases where jurors have said stuff like "no respecting woman would go to that party" and "she knew what was bound to happen"... :thumbsdown:

---

Reminds me of the argument "She was wearing a short skirt, she was just asking to be raped".

No one goes to these things expecting to be raped, unless they explicitly asked and wouldn't be in court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

While I may support the principle behind the jury(even if only a little), I'm leaning towards the no-jury options simply because I believe it's been shown that educated judges make better rulings.

For example, rape cases are held with a jury. And we've had plenty of cases where jurors have said stuff like "no respecting woman would go to that party" and "she knew what was bound to happen"... :thumbsdown:

---

As opposed to the Judge who said, "If she doesn't want it, a woman just has to keep her legs closed, and she won't get it."

Many judges are over educated bigots.

i don't have much time for the rule of the impartial techocrat, because no technocrat is impartial.

trial by jury thanks.

Only time I wouldn't want trial by jury if it is a case where I am innocent, and I am going to get found guilty because of the abuse of emotional pleas and other things where a trained professional wouldn't be compromised.

Other than selfish incidence, trial by jury all the way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable as well.

---

A judge would know this, a jury wouldn't necessarily.

The best thing about trial by jury is when the judge tells the jury not to take into consideration what they just heard, at least in movies they do that. Never been in a courtroom myself.
As I understand it, here in Germany the court system works quite well and I'd trust a judge far more than a jury.
In the end though, both systems depend heavily on the personality of the people involved, there are bad judges and bad juries. And isn't it so that a whole lot of people don't like jury duty and try to avoid it? Can they still try to be impartial if all they want is for it to end ASAP? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

jury trial is the best option. Far less chance of corruption

---

Hehe, well, for one, I dislike such brief and categorical statements. For two (if such a turn of a phrase exists), a jury of three high-placed magistrates and a jury of twelve common men may not be as different as you think. The three magistrates are few in number, but the they will inevitably demand exorbitant bribes for a whole menagerie of reasons. Twelve common men require far humbler "gifts", especially if there is no bribing war going on.

All theoretically speaking of course...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

A judge would know this, a jury wouldn't necessarily.

---

Ideally the defense lawyer can explain it.

Quote:

---

The best thing about trial by jury is when the judge tells the jury not to take into consideration what they just heard, at least in movies they do that. Never been in a courtroom myself.
As I understand it, here in Germany the court system works quite well and I'd trust a judge far more than a jury.
In the end though, both systems depend heavily on the personality of the people involved, there are bad judges and bad juries. And isn't it so that a whole lot of people don't like jury duty and try to avoid it? Can they still try to be impartial if all they want is for it to end ASAP? :inquisitive:

---

In a movie I saw the lawyers were meeting beforehand to pick out which jurors they wanted to be part of the jury. Well, it had demonic possession in it too.

VV yeah, that was it. Keaunu picks out some old lady because he thinks she'll convict the guy or something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

In a movie I saw the lawyers were meeting beforehand to pick out which jurors they wanted to be part of the jury. Well, it had demonic possession in it too.

---

You mean the Devil's Advocate with Al Pacino starring in it?

At least in Canada, they may choose to not accept 3 jurors. Apart from that, the legal system is a total mystery to me. I hope moose are involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

I hope moose are involved.

---

Moose-burgers a la Pálin featured among the refreshments in a meal during a break between litigation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It was imported by the Normans, and post-dates trial by Jury.

Not to mention, France still seems to have peasants from where we are sitting.

You've also produced a typically French understanding of "Superior" which betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the Englishman's traditionally loyalty and his willingness to accept authority.

Another French elaboration, a result of Frankish hereditory titles.

---

This is why I have never managed to think of you as other than Wigferth Ironwall. :bow:

I'm not a fan of jury trials. I think it encourages both prosecution and defense to sentimentalize their cases in order to sway the jury's mood. Especially when you require an unanimous verdict to convict someone.

In Germany (or at least certain states there) the judges' chamber is usually supplemented with civilians, if there are 3 professionals then there have to be two laymen. I don't know how this works out in practice but it's an interesting experiment.

Going on from the problems with sentimentality creeping into all cases is one refinement that is long overdue:

Lawyers will often state things that the other lawyer objects to or in extreme cases the judge orders to be retracted. but the jury still heard it so how can you retract it? If the proceedings were on tape the tape could have these things removed so the jury was unaware. It would also distance the jury to the facts, and not to emote one way or the other.

Come to think of it, why is the defendant known to the jury? There is nothing about the defendant that is is relevant in almost all cases, unless we are to make judgements on the way they look / dress.

~:smoking:

I've been on several juries, from purse snatching to armed robbery to homicide by vehicle. At least here in Pennsylvania, both prosecution and defense must agree on the jurors. A panel of some 40-50 jurors are called with 14 going into the juror's box (12 jurors plus 2 alternates). Each attorney asks the panel questions to determine which jurors might have a bias - do you know anyone in the courtroom?; have you ever been the victim of (crime being tried)?; are you able to render a "guilty" verdict if the evidence indicates such?; and so forth. As jurors are eliminated from the jury box (and from the panel), jurors remaining from the panel fill in any vacated seats. Depending upon the seriousness of the trial, this process (there is a legal name for it) can be fairly short or go on for an hour or more. I believe in big time trials the laywers can go through several panels (and days) until they are both happy with the jury.

Regarding eye witnesses, the attorneys, of course, try to support or discredit witnesses as suits their side of the case. However, it is up the the jurors to also make a judgement as to the validity of the testimony of any witness. I heard police testimony that I felt was completely unreliable. I've heard defendants who seemed like decent people, yet had not one shred of evidence to support their innocence or refute the prosecution evidence/witnesses.

As far as the pros in the court, being an attorney does not make one Perry Mason. I've seen a public defender inept enough to be a lawyer on a sitcom. I've seen high profile prosecution and defense attorneys bickering back and forth with an expert witness over the definition of "winter solstice". :wall: (It could have been a Backroom thread here at the Org :laugh4:) Judges are interesting to watch. I often wondered if they were paying attention at all - playing with a bunch of pencils, leaning back in their cushy, highback leather chair staring at the ceiling, etc. Which may be why they have courtroom recorders :laugh4: - who are by far the most interesting people to watch do their job. I guess what I'm getting at here with this last section, is that while Joe Blow off the street might make questionable jurors, from what I've seen, I'm not sure any courtroom pros (or judges) are necessarily any better.

Post adjourned. :smash:

Quote:

---

Hehe, well, for one, I dislike such brief and categorical statements. For two (if such a turn of a phrase exists), a jury of three high-placed magistrates and a jury of twelve common men may not be as different as you think. The three magistrates are few in number, but the they will inevitably demand exorbitant bribes for a whole menagerie of reasons. Twelve common men require far humbler "gifts", especially if there is no bribing war going on.

All theoretically speaking of course...

---

The trouble with your proposed solution is that it is easier to bribe

Quote:

---

three high ranking magistrates

---

over time than it is to bribe 12 randomly selected jurors. As well those jurors could be relatively well off financially or morally incorruptible. As well this creates logistic problems as these three judges are expected to oversee most cases, no? They would be if they are paid enough to be incorruptible. I also would not like such accessible magistrates. In the US at least there are cases of high profile crimes in which the jurors are guarded so as to decrease contact with the defendant. For entities like the mob and other organized crime the proposed style of judgment you propose would be a dream because they could take their time in corrupting these high officials. Finally, you are pursuing a typically elitist (reference to political elitist, not any sort of reference to left or right) person. In believing that the common man has no ability to resist bribery you are clearly separating yourself into a camp of who is superior to who.

And as a touche.... what form of trial does Russia use (you spend alot of time there, no?


cause i dont think that is what course of action the rest of the world should follow.


As an aside: Russians use a form of trial mostly like AP recommends with a slow phasing in of Jury trials once more. These Jury trials have been found to be much more fair and less harsh than previous forms of trial in Russia. The Bolsheviks supposedly used the trial system but they were simply tools for people like commissars to make decisions. Often it appears that these Juries were slipped the paper detailing the verdict by the Party officials.

Is that broad and categorical enough for you, AP?