i dont think we've had this thread yet personally i am pro judge, because frankly i'd like to be judged by someone who knows what he/she is talking about, and not some guy who is pissed at me cause of me he/she has jury duty
There are several things that abolish your obligation, like reserved holidays also it's expensive to hold trials by jury so chances are you'll be judged by a magistrate, so no worries. But I'm more of a jury person because the more opinions the more appropriate the judgement.
there is something else i dont like about the jury system in a judge system, if you have a bad lawyer, the judge is also trained to look at all the facts, the jury however is not
I'm for a judge. Seems less biased to me. Since only a judge that is in no way related to you, is allowed to be your judge. A large jury group is far more likely to be related to the defendant. But what's a magistrate? Oh, and about jury people: they are just random, regular citizens, right? What do they know of objectively judging a person? Or even know how to interprete the law properly? I always found that quite strange, and movies give an unrealistic image. I put my trust in people here to convince me.
No, it's not likely that any of the jury knows any of the people in the court room. They're cross examined by the defendant and can be dismissed. Even if you are lucky to have a friend of yours asked for service (extremely small chance of that because of the random pick) there's a slight chance that they won't even make it into the court room since they're picked out of 15 people by the court clerk. And if by some impossible coincidence someone the defendant knows gets in and stays the jury can file a complaint to the judge if a person is overly in favour/against the defendant. For me the consequences alone would be enough to put me off of any kind of rescue or vendetta mission.
I picked judge because the jury is just composed of regular people who don't know how to judge correctly. Most of the times, they let their emotions get in the way of a fair judgement.
LOL yes! Judge Judy is amazing =D I always love that angry look she gives people when they back talk.
Judge. ESPECIALLY if you are accused of child molestation. You would need a VERY strong defense to avoid being prosecuted by a jury in such a case.
I picked judge however juries do have their place. In most cases a jury creates an even larger buffer to make sure that the evidence is substantial enough to convict a person. I would rather see a guilty person set free than an innocent one imprisoned. At least that’s the case in Australia where juries have to come to a unanimous decision. However they do fall down as they quite often cause mistrials in large cases where media attention and self interest is a major factor. An example being in Australia where a jury took it upon themselves to go to a crime scene to conduct an "investigation" which of course meant that the whole jury had to be dissolved and the case restarted as they attempted to draw conclusions with evidence outside the court. @Makatak In child molestation cases if a jury showed bias the defendants lawyer can very easily call a mistrial and the person may walk free. Judges instruct juries to only go by the evidence presented in court so this does not occur.
No offense to you guys, but you have way to much faith in an elected official. I think judges work best percisely because they don't have final say in the outcome. While I agree for the most part a judge will be more impartial than a single person off the street, that is not what makes up a jury. A jury is made up of several people all with their own biases that as a group should be less biased than any single individual. Obviously the jury system breaks down in high profile cases, and cases involving particularly despicable crimes, but that is why there is a judge. The way I view it is that a judge enforces the rules and sometimes makes them, and the jury is the group of people that have to actually play the game. If a single person both sets the rules and plays the game where is the check against their power?
@Kerwyn, in yet another court also, in big cases, there isnt one judge, there usually are 3 and you can do i t all over
Yeah, but just because a court is higher up on the chain doesn't mean it is any more or less biased. In the U.S. for example, the supreme court has never been a bastion of unbiased opinion becaus of the way its members are decided on, I would imagine this is true for most countries. Also, the same problems that apply to a single judge apply to a group of 3, they still make the rules and play the game simultaneuosly. The beauty of a jury is that they exist outside the system so they are the most likely to be impartial on any given matter. Something that is cool about the U.S. system is I believe the defendant has the option of either a jury trial or a trial with just a single judge. I think this choice (assuming I am remebering correctly) is inherently the best of both worlds because it puts the power in the hands of the person whose freedom is on the line.
i wasnt reffering to the american supreme court, i meant a random other court as is used in holland. The thing about a Jury is, the people want to do whats moral, not what is illegal. If someone does a legal thing that they concider immoral, there is a fat chance that they would declare them guilty Also, untrained people usually listen better to the accuser/victim, since they show more emotions, while the accused usually tries to restrain that. Who would you believe, the person who cries, or the person who tries to show no emotion? Without any evidence but an accusation people would actually already choose a side.
I know you weren't talking about SCOTUS I was just using it as an example. Anyways, i understand your point on the tendencies of people to judge morality and not law (as well as naturally siding with the accuser) but that is the whole point of having a judge oversee the procedings. I just simply believe it is better have the power split amongst several people versus consolidated in one person when a person's freedom could hang in the balance.
Actually the judge doesn't oversee the proceedings concerning the final verdict. Well, not in the British system at least. He doesn't have any saying in whether the person is found guilty or not, he's merely presented an opinion upon which he has to decide the severity of the punishment, but not whether it's justified or not.
Bumpation week, feel the thrillz I'm still hung up over this issue, but I thought it'd be nice to get some more opinions in this matter. I still support judges, because they are trained to bias just a tad less. To me the weak point of juries is morality, where they convict someone who a judge would probably set free, because they fear he would harm society. A big issue with me is what happened to the guy who sold an 'adult' comic book from the adult section of his store to an adult, and was convicted for it, as the jury believed that comics as a medium should be solely for children. Perhaps a system of both would be best morally, although not financially. a judge and a jury who can only convict someone if both sides say he is guilty/
Oh look, a comedian Jury verdicts are virtually unassailable. It would take something very egregious and open to get a mistrial because of jury bias (which is why it is damn important to exercise challenges during voir dire wisely). And there is a big difference between what the judge instructs the jury to do and what the jurors may actually do. Anyway, for myself it would completely depend on what I am charged with and the circumstances of this case. edit: and a jury is far more likely to inject "morality" into the equation than a judge, especially with the state of judicial discretion under the current sentencing guidelines.
