Rant against Jury Trial.

[Treize]

Sorry but I have to get it out of my head after seeing the movie The perfect Husband: The Laci Peterson Story.

A Jury Trial is exactly the same as a Angry mob with pitchforks and flaming torches Trail. What you get is people who are influenced by the media (guilty, guilty guilty screaming mobs, crying moms and biased reporters who all point their wicked fingers at the main suspect) and by their gut feelings playing judge. I want to thank the proverbal god on my bare knees that I live in a country where we are given a real trial and not a he who tells the most emotional story wins trial.

[xcorps]

So you are raging against something you saw a movie about.

Tissue?

[Treize]

Nah, the topic in general.

[conon394]

A Jury Trial is exactly the same as a Angry mob with pitchforks and flaming torches Trail. What you get is people who are influenced by the media (guilty, guilty guilty screaming mobs, crying moms and biased reporters who all point their wicked fingers at the main suspect) and by their gut feelings playing judge. I want to thank the proverbal god on my bare knees that I live in a country where we are given a real trial and not a he who tells the most emotional story wins trial.

Huh a Jury is hardly a mob - so what's a 'real' trial anyway?
So what you think the man did not kill his wife or what dingo's did it?

I think you are perhaps confusing victim statements before sentencing with the actual mechanics of trial.

[Rolling Thunder]

Wait, what?

You're ranting against a fictionalised, dramatised account of something you've never seen.

That's....that's just.....

...is there any more polite way to put the term "Mind-bogglingly stupid"?

[conon394]

Besides without a jury trial you loose jury nullification thus you get to cite another fictinalized trial even the 'Jenn Valjean' situation.

[Lazzeer]

Besides without a jury trial you loose jury nullification thus you get to cite another fictinalized trial even the 'Jenn Valjean' situation.

Exactly, it's an incredibly important reason, if not the best reason for having jury trials, in that they can find someone guilty on the facts, and yet find them not guilty.

[Treize]

I did not make this thread because of the movie, it was just because I was remembered by it. I do not oppose jury trail because of the movie (the didn't even mention it in the movie AFAIK).

[conon394]

So what by your definition is a good real trial?

No media circus ever surrounds any other trials but those in the US?

Aside from a reference to docudrama - show me some data that says juries convict more than other kinds of trials or not or or more biased or what - what is you point anyway?

[Treize]

So what by your definition is a good real trial?

No media circus ever surrounds any other trials but those in the US?

Aside from a reference to docudrama - show me some data that says juries convict more than other kinds of trials or not or or more biased or what - what is you point anyway?

A good trail should be done by a independent, unbiased judge or multiple judges. Not by a jury. A jury is the same as an angry mob.

[Rolling Thunder]

A good trail should be done by a independent, unbiased judge or multiple judges. Not by a jury. A jury is the same as an angry mob.

1. No human being is ever unbiased. Fact. End of.
2. And the precise difference between a judge and a juror? Does one need a decade's experience in legal matters to perceive justice? Swift observed that it is often the latter, and that the most praised and experienced in legal matters are those who most go out of their way to pervert justice, and are indeed so in the habit and form of it that justice is impervious to them unless couched in the form and specific manner of legalese.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

A good trail should be done by a independent, unbiased judge or multiple judges. Not by a jury. A jury is the same as an angry mob.

You do know in many cases a judge will lead a jury into a certain dierection? And you can appeal a decision?

[xcorps]

Have you ever seen a jury trial? (Not a movie...a real trial)

[43rdFoot]

A Jury is not the same as an angry mob. They are picked by both the defense and the prosecution, and are screened for any direct bias. A judge cannot be screened for bias.

[conon394]

A good trail should be done by a independent, unbiased judge or multiple judges. Not by a jury. A jury is the same as an angry mob.

A Judge appointed how, susceptible to bribery and political ambition perhaps?

Also a Judge is an officer of the court and thus bound to the law and thus as I noted you are ignoring the right of a Jury to trump law with justice and find even those guilty, innocent if the law itself is unjust in general or in a particular case. A jury trial recognizes both the rule of law and the need for justice.

And of course Jury trial have judges so I'm not sure what the point is - thay can dismiss jurors who show bias, they watch for extra legal tactics by both defense and prosecution, they can close a trial or cloister its jury...

[Treize]

But systems without a jury are better.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

No they are not, not at all. Let's get a few things straight here. How many times have you heard about a jury being biased? A jury isn't the hollywood one, it is usually a simple process. If there is any sense of bias, it is a misscarriage of justice and a new trial will most likely be ordered. If the media are stating facts, then eh I don't see the point? If they begin to write defamatory articles, then you can have an injunction put in place to stop those false stories.

If it is just one judge, you have one person (who can be biased, even though they are supposed to not be) who can decide the future of a person. It does not work.

And on a final note, if the judge deems that the media may influence the jury, they can make the trial in camera (No media allowed).

So your rant is nonsensical.

[Treize]

My main point is that a jury is made up of people who haven't studied law and who are easy to influence. A proffesional judge is selected to be unbiased and after dozens of cases they get used to the emotional aspect. Ofcourse that is far from perfect but atleast it is better.

Look up the Belgian parachute murder for a great example why jury trail is bad.

[Adhamh Ashashi]

My main point is that a jury is made up of people who haven't studied law and who are easy to influence. A proffesional judge is selected to be unbiased and after dozens of cases they get used to the emotional aspect. Ofcourse that is far from perfect but atleast it is better.

Look up the Belgian parachute murder for a great example why jury trail is bad.

Looked it up, she seemed to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt, your point being?

A judge had the exact same evidence, and a judge can overrule a decision if the case is appealed. So, please explain the problems with a jury? I mean it is pratically a constitutional right in some countries to have a trial in front of a jury, so please, elaborate

[Surgeon]

You know, I don't know about a better alternative to jury trials, but a US lawyer friend of mine pretty much concurs with you in that, in the majority of cases the jury is made of 1) people too stupid to wriggle out of being called up to be the jury and 2) people with a fireman's complex who are blinded by idealism. Maybe, once in a while, you'll get some intelligence on there but you'd be lucky if it's even one person.

Actually, I do have a better alternative to jury trials: don't get caught