Unanimous Jury Verdicts Required For Serious Criminal Convictions -- Supreme Court Rules

[Beer]

You can appeal, you can have multiple judges, you can not elect judges but appoint them based on competence. There are many solutions better than having 12 morons with no background in law judge a complex case.

Still sounds substantially worse. I agree having 12 morons means the better lawyer wins and not necessarily the truth winning. But I don't see how what you just laid out is better.

 

[Harambe]

Panels of experts? How we declare experts exactly, I don't know.

 

[JimLes]

Still sounds substantially worse. I agree having 12 morons means the better lawyer wins and not necessarily the truth winning. But I don't see how what you just laid out is better.

You don't see how legal experts making a decision is better than random people making a decision?

Remember, every normal country expect America, judges are appointed in a non-partisan process. They're subject to reviews and censure by their own organizations, and can be removed. Higher courts can also vacate sentences, if they believe a judge was bought off, or has "certain awful biases, prejudices or motivations."

I mean, all of continental Europe has trials by judge(or again, a team of judges) and I would assume you're much more likely to see miscarriages of justice occur in the states than say Norway or Netherlands.

 

[checkbookdoc]

You don't see how legal experts making a decision is better than random people making a decision?

Remember, every normal country expect America, judges are appointed in a non-partisan process. They're subject to reviews and censure by their own organizations, and can be removed. Higher courts can also vacate sentences, if they believe a judge was bought off, or has "certain awful biases, prejudices or motivations."

I mean, all of continental Europe has trials by judge(or again, a team of judges) and I would assume you're much more likely to see miscarriages of justice occur in the states than say Norway or Netherlands.

The issue is that system results in the rich & "privileged" making decisions that disproportionately impact poor & disadvantaged. Maybe it is still a better system, but I don't see much support for it in the US. At least, I expect Democrats would be worried about minority representation & Republicans wouldn't like the idea of giving government more control.

 

[Miggs]

You can appeal, you can have multiple judges, you can not elect judges but appoint them based on competence. There are many solutions better than having 12 morons with no background in law judge a complex case.

One can also ask a judge to set aside a jury’s verdict if I’m not mistaken. Or go through appeals after a jury trial.

 

[JimLes]

One can also ask a judge to set aside a jury’s verdict if I’m not mistaken. Or go through appeals after a jury trial.

So why have the extra step of having a jury? Other than to make it a reality TV spectacle of having the average Joe perform tasks he is utterly unqualified for?

 

[One Brow]

So why have the extra step of having a jury? Other than to make it a reality TV spectacle of having the average Joe perform tasks he is utterly unqualified for?

I believe it is so the Average Joes are involved at all. Very few Average Joes become prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, etc.

 

[Miggs]

So why have the extra step of having a jury? Other than to make it a reality TV spectacle of having the average Joe perform tasks he is utterly unqualified for?

You’re hung up on this idea of people being utterly qualified as if listening to information presented and making an informed decision is rocket science. Listen, there are tons of morons out there. There are also tons of corrupt judges.

 

[Archie Moses]

. There are many solutions better than having 12 morons with no background in law judge a complex case.

You sound really judgmental.

 

[Archie Moses]

You’re hung up on this idea of people being utterly qualified as if listening to information presented and making an informed decision is rocket science. Listen, there are tons of morons out there. There are also tons of corrupt judges.

Seriously.

Five year old kids know right from wrong.

Do jurors get it wrong? Absolutely.

However...

Again, what's a better system?

 

[Archie Moses]

So why have the extra step of having a jury? Other than to make it a reality TV spectacle of having the average Joe perform tasks he is utterly unqualified for?

Why not? What's better?

 

[Archie Moses]

You don't see how legal experts making a decision is better than random people making a decision?

Remember, every normal country expect America, judges are appointed in a non-partisan process. They're subject to reviews and censure by their own organizations, and can be removed. Higher courts can also vacate sentences, if they believe a judge was bought off, or has "certain awful biases, prejudices or motivations."

I mean, all of continental Europe has trials by judge(or again, a team of judges) and I would assume you're much more likely to see miscarriages of justice occur in the states than say Norway or Netherlands.

Do you have research that shows this is better? I'm asking because I don't know.