Judgement by jury

[bmolsson]

No I don't believe in having an unchecked government. Part of the reason of the success of most democratic governments is the accountability of them, which the checks and balances help insure. Any person who gives up freedom for security deserves neither. Nor should a government elected by the people have free reign, they may have been elected on a few topical issues this does not give them absolute authority.

So you do believe in the democratic process. Then you also believe that the laws written in the democratic process is good and should be enforced. And that is best done by a judge, educated in the laws to be enforced.

DNA evidence is not absolute.

a) Tiny chance that the sequence checked can be identical on two individuals
b) We shed DNA everywhere we go. Our skin which forms upto 90% of household dust. This dust can be blown hundreds of kilometers by wind or carried off by other individuals.
c) DNA like any other evidence (like drugs) can be planted by a third party.

Even more important, twins have identical DNA......

[Papewaio]

So you do believe in the democratic process. Then you also believe that the laws written in the democratic process is good and should be enforced. And that is best done by a judge, educated in the laws to be enforced.

A jury finds the if they are or are not guilty.

A judge then decides the sentence or they can even suspend it. He writes up the account of the whys of the sentence at that point based on the evidence given and other factors. The jury is a judicial safeguard.

A judge is not democratically elected. Nor are they easy to get rid of. The problem is the level of professionalism can be found lacking in some of them. Falling asleep at trials being one of the more obvious problems.

[bmolsson]

A jury finds the if they are or are not guilty.

A judge then decides the sentence or they can even suspend it. He writes up the account of the whys of the sentence at that point based on the evidence given and other factors. The jury is a judicial safeguard.

A judge is not democratically elected. Nor are they easy to get rid of. The problem is the level of professionalism can be found lacking in some of them. Falling asleep at trials being one of the more obvious problems.

If a judge fails his duties, he is to be suspended or punished. Just like any other professionals there has to be an ethical committee. This committee can have elected people. There is nothing in my opinion that make me being treated more fairly by having a jury deciding if I am guilty or not.
Furthermore, are you saying that normal people would never fall asleep during a trial while a judge would ? I can't really see the relevance to be honest.

[Soulforged]

If a judge fails his duties, he is to be suspended or punished. Just like any other professionals there has to be an ethical committee. This committee can have elected people. There is nothing in my opinion that make me being treated more fairly by having a jury deciding if I am guilty or not.
Furthermore, are you saying that normal people would never fall asleep during a trial while a judge would ? I can't really see the relevance to be honest.

The judges are punished in exeptional cases that practically, due to level of study and knowledge, rarely happen in reality, one of these would be making analogy of a criminal law. In reality they've a kind of absolute power, being the supreme ruler the Supreme Court, wich sentences are practically laws by themselves. Though this in anyway makes the decitions biased or partial, this has nothing to do with that, but the real subject here is the separation of powers.

A jury finds the if they are or are not guilty.

Just that only is very difficult. Believe me.

A judge then decides the sentence or they can even suspend it. He writes up the account of the whys of the sentence at that point based on the evidence given and other factors. The jury is a judicial safeguard.

But that's exceptionally facultative of the judge, he cannot make it in every case, or can he? So the jury makes "whys" (arguments) when they really have not idea of what they're talking about? I asure you that not all the arguments are reduced to the facts, there're a great number that corresponds to the abstract analisys. To me the jury acts more like Pindar said, like the element of morality in the court, though i disagree with that conception, morality is a totally different thing from law (directum, derecho, the science as i explained before).

A judge is not democratically elected. Nor are they easy to get rid of. The problem is the level of professionalism can be found lacking in some of them. Falling asleep at trials being one of the more obvious problems.

The judge is not democratically elected because the same ones that know the flaws on the system know that if the judge is elected then he'll have to favor certain elite that supported and supports him. Well you're right they're not easy at all. I never saw a judge falling asleep here, most be a problem of the unic enviorament of Australy .

[Duke of Gloucester]

Here we call the science not law, but "derecho" wich comes from "directum" (rect, oriented to or by, from the latin) the "derecho" (that would be translated to english like "right") has four sources: jurisprudence, law (ley here, "lex" from the roman language), doctrine and custom. Between the four they cover every hole mentioned avobe by you, so there's no need to establish them in the law, because there's others sources that the judge, jurists and lawyers take in account, and that anyone without a minimal knowledge of the science will never know, therefore cannot make a true judgement in this complicated matter, that's not a question of morality or simple custom, but right, directum.

In England and Wales the law has three sources, statutes passed by parliament, common law, which, I suppose is the same as "custom", and case law where judges interpretaion of statute and common law binds subsequent judges to behave in the same way. This is complicated: society and technology change, so new situations arise, language changes, new statutes overlap with old ones, new judgements are made; in order to understand all this, you need years of training. "Anyone with a minimal knowledge of the science will never know it...", I agree entirely. However in most cases the issues are those of fact, and not of law. In England and Wales juries never make decisions about law. They only make decisions about fact. If the proposed system in Argentina is that juries make legal decisions, then you are right to be against it.

They are not making decisions entirely on their own. The judge is there to guide them. He or she will say things like "If you believe such and such a thing you should find the defendent not guilty. If, on the other hand you believe such and such, you should find the defendant guilty." If the judge does not give correct direction, then this can be challenged on appeal. I suppose an argument could be made for alternatives to jury trial for cases where facts are very complicated and involved, perhaps fraud cases. However in nearly all cases, both the law and the factual issues are straightforward.

[Del Arroyo]

A judge in Oklahoma got busted for jerking off under the bench... they even said he sometimes used penis pumps during court proceedings.....

[Adrian II]

A judge in Oklahoma got busted for jerking off under the bench... they even said he sometimes used penis pumps during court proceedings.....

Imagine what those juries get up to behind closed doors..

[Soulforged]

In England and Wales the law has three sources, statutes passed by parliament, common law, which, I suppose is the same as "custom", and case law where judges interpretaion of statute and common law binds subsequent judges to behave in the same way. This is complicated: society and technology change, so new situations arise, language changes, new statutes overlap with old ones, new judgements are made; in order to understand all this, you need years of training. "Anyone with a minimal knowledge of the science will never know it...", I agree entirely. However in most cases the issues are those of fact, and not of law. In England and Wales juries never make decisions about law. They only make decisions about fact. If the proposed system in Argentina is that juries make legal decisions, then you are right to be against it.

They are not making decisions entirely on their own. The judge is there to guide them. He or she will say things like "If you believe such and such a thing you should find the defendent not guilty. If, on the other hand you believe such and such, you should find the defendant guilty." If the judge does not give correct direction, then this can be challenged on appeal. I suppose an argument could be made for alternatives to jury trial for cases where facts are very complicated and involved, perhaps fraud cases. However in nearly all cases, both the law and the factual issues are straightforward.

Yes i think i understand your position, but then this system is really archaic. Though it has administrative advantages, the truth is that every case is a mess of circumstances and facts that can only be seen by the expert. There's the case of that image of the two mans in black and white that can also be perceived as a jar, this one is very famous. But in science there's always one true perception not two, and if the jury has only the perception from the side of custom and morality the decisions can rarely be properly founded, though the conviction may achieve justice anyway, but if something lacks of form the content may get lost.

[Papewaio]

But in science there's always one true perception not two

Science deals with models and facts. It also can have multiple perceptions that are correct.

[sharrukin]

If a judge fails his duties, he is to be suspended or punished. Just like any other professionals there has to be an ethical committee. This committee can have elected people.

What colour is the sky in your world?

Judicial accountability is a joke! Like lawyers, and doctors, judges are rarely held accountable for their actions, even when they become outrageous. Slightly more than a dozen federal judges and perhaps 20 state judges, have been removed from office in the history of the United States and I would be very much surprised if it was much different elsewhere.