Very professional

Also, you can always waive your right to trial by jury, and choose to have the judge alone render the verdict.

Unfortunately, the schools don't educate you about your legal rights in most places, so I'd be surprised if one in a hundred people knew that right existed. Such a large choice shouldn't be considered five minutes after someone tells you that you have this right, if anyone actually does.

Most likely, it is something that your legal council will make you aware of. Most times, they'll recommend you go with a jury.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a horribly flawed system. Judges are people who spent years to decades of their life preparing for such a status to be able to objectively evaluate the evidence to decide whether or not someone deserves to have their life ruined. A jury are random people who basically only need to be 18. A homeless man, a gang member, a high school dropout, a middle school dropout, someone who never went to school. It may change for better or worse depending on the exact county and state laws, but it still remains that you are still being judged guilty by someone who doesn't know jackshit about the law.

Juries are carefully selected, especially in high profile cases like murder, to make certain that only qualified individuals will sit on the jury. The last thing I want to do is turn over my fate to one person, who may be thinking more about how to best advance their career than whether I am innocent or guilty.

The only qualified person is a judge. The jury is randomly selected invidividuals who have no criminal record, are above the age of 18, and are US citizens. They aren't carefully selected. They are slightly filtered at best.

it would be shitbif some members of the jury have had a bad experience with you or if you worked at a bank and co hldnt reverse their overdraft fee because they were too stupid to not spend money they don't have. there is more to a jury then knowing the law...the public is incompetent and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions like that

A corrupt person "bound by law" is corrupt... and thereby no longer following the law, but their own interests. That's how they became corrupt in the first place

I don't care if my judge is a known rapist. If he rules in a way that goes against the law, then his ruling becomes invalid, and my case will be given to a proper judge. Regardless, stop focusing on the side stories and argue against my actual argument @xvarnah. Actually, don't. I really don't feel like arguing with someone who obviously has the same understanding of the legal system as a middle schooler who just heard of anarchy.

Good grief someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed. If you don't want someone commenting on any given part of your argument, don't post it in the first place. O.o I'm not obligated to address every single point you made-- other people were handling that just fine. However, if I see a horrifically laping wound in someone's logic that's bleeding all over everything, I find it hard to ignore.
'
I find it interesting that you felt the need to turn so hostile because someone dared to point out the nature of corruption is, in fact, that it makes someone corrupt. Judges don't have to "break" the law per se to be corrupt-- they can choose whichever side they want to be on, as long as they can make it sound convincing at the end of the day. The same applies to any group of people schooled to act as jurors, as you would favour. I'm not sure whether to pity or envy your rose-colored view of the world, but either way I hope the rest of your day goes better

Thinking that if a corrupt judge ruled improperly the case would be handed over to someone else is so naive. You'd just go to jail. Don't pass go don't collect 200 buckeroos.