Trial by Jury

[Fragony]

Look at the alternative... A judge having unlimited power without influence from "the normal man".

Something to say for that. A lot goes wrong here because some judges are from another planet. A rediculously violent Turkish mobster was allowed on leave to watch what his wive hatched. 'You will come back right?' Sure! 'promise?' Of course, you can trust me I'm pimp 'OK NOW LET'S GET NAKED!'

ok I made up the last part

Turk -> Turkey
judges absolutely flabberghasted.

One of MANY screwups

[Skullheadhq]

Something to say for that. A lot goes wrong here because some judges are from another planet. A rediculously violent Turkish mobster was allowed on leave to watch what his wive hatched. 'You will come back right?' Sure! 'promise?' Of course, you can trust me I'm pimp 'OK NOW LET'S GET NAKED!'

ok I made up the last part

Turk -> Turkey
judges absolutely flabberghasted.

One of MANY screwups

And this wouldn't have happened with a jury?

[Fragony]

And this wouldn't have happened with a jury?

No I don't think so, I am changing my position the orgahs make sense.

[Skullheadhq]

No I don't think so, I am changing my position the orgahs make sense.

Juries can't detain someone, that's still up to the judge.

[Fragony]

Juries can't detain someone, that's still up to the judge.

Not sure how it works, but limiting the power of the judge sounds fine. Escpecially here as they are appointed for life.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Judges handle pre-trial motions, bail decisions etc. No jury would have kept that perp from Turkey. Perhaps the alleged criminal in question should have mentioned that he intended to watch the birth on youtube from Ankara.

In the USA, it is possible in most civil cases and in some jurisdictions in criminal cases as well, for the defendant/respondant to request trial by judge and avoid a jury. The key part there is that the plaintiff/state does not have such a right.

Judges do not merely moderate the debate and render sentence. It is (usually) within the judge's purview to "set aside" a jury verdict that she deems to be completely out of step with the facts of the case or the normal application of the relevant laws. Obviously, this sort of decision can be and is appealed, but the judge can step in to halt a jury that is rendering a whacky verdict. Perhaps TinCow and/or Andres could touch on this more?

In addition, the judge's ability to render sentence is often curtailed by legislation that mandates certain minimum and/or maximum penalties for a given offense. These limitations vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Do you not think Judges can use emotial instead of logic when making a verdict?

[Skullheadhq]

Do you not think Judges can use emotial instead of logic when making a verdict?

I don't think such a judge will keep his job for very long, and all his verdicts would be reversed.

[Fragony]

I don't think such a judge will keep his job for very long, and all his verdicts would be reversed.

Ha a severe alcoholic judge was protected for ten years even if they knew she was always drunk, lt got too much when she didn't show up in court for a week and they found her home on the floor laying in her own crap. A lot is wrong here and not just the judges, just google Joris Demmink. On a safe computer.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do you not think Judges can use emotial instead of logic when making a verdict?

Judges are supposed to rule according to the law, adhering to legal precedent and preferencing fact over emotional response. They are, however, as human as any of us, so there is little doubt that emotion does influence things at least part of the time.


All in all, I prefer the system of trial by jury. Juries may be of mixed ability but generally consist of people who are trying to decide a verdict according to the facts presented. Trial before a tribunal is really the only alternative that holds any real value as an alternative, as there is more than one who has to rule a particular way for that result to be effected. Trial before a single judge as a habitual approach would lend itself far too readily to corruption in one form or another.

The public preference, as can be discerned from any number of examples, is for trial by media. Remember that most of our jurors being empaneled across the USA today would be unable to locate Ghana on a non-interactive map, could not name the Majority Leader in the US Senate, and wouldn't be able to distinguish whether a particular quotation was more likely to have been penned by Nietzche than by Aristotle. On the other hand, they are well aware of Brett Michaels' Apprentice success, are fully briefed on Taylor Swift's having been "dissed" at the Grammy awards, and could offer "informed" insight on the guilt/innocence of the alleged murderer of UVA lacrosse player Love.