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.Originally Posted by bmolsson
Just that only is very difficult. Believe me.Originally Posted by Papewaio
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 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.
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 AustralyA 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..
Bookmarks