No one ever said it wasn't a flawed system?
`
That's not controversial it's a well-known fact. It's also why there's sometimes the choice between being judged by a single entity instead of by 12.
`
It's also why it is often heavily regulated - why people with specific backgrounds (such as criminal) aren't considered. Why both the prosecution and the attorneys are usually allowed to vet and veto members during selection.
`
It's why juries often have to be unanimous, why they are sequestered to avoid outside influence, why they are directed on things to consider or disregard.
`
There is no such thing as a perfect system, and there never will be. But until there's a better alternative, we can only do the best we can with what we've got
And for the record trial by judge is far from flawless either.
`
Most judges are NOT well versed in all aspects of the law they may be faced with.
`
Lawyers will bombarde them with pages and pages of documentation which would discombobulating even to the most savvy law member. Points are often skewed, left out, or repeated.
`
Judges are simply human and a bad day, a misunderstanding, a deliberate bias can all effect the way they rule.
`
I think they did a study once that found that cases presented right after lunch were usually the most likely to land in a more lenient ruling at one point (but don't quote me on this)
This is also why you are innocent until proven guilty and it has be without a shadow of doubt. Then there is the fact that even if a guilty verdict is given the judge sets the sentence. Like you said it's not flawless but it's designed to have checks and balances to make it as fair as possible.
But if I'm accused of committing a crime, and criminals are banned from being on the jury, then how can I be judged by a jury of my peers (as is my right)?
The jury is meant to give the innocent the best chance of avoiding false conviction. Being accused of committing a crime is what leads to trial -- until conviction as far as I know it is impossible for the law to consider you a "criminal."
.
Therefore having criminals off the jury does not prevent you being judged by a jury of your peers-- having them ON the jury would
.
Unless you are confessing to being a criminal, in which case we don't need a jury after all
Well technically no because the trial for among us is only guesses and witnesses and there is no telling who is lying and no way to prove it.
While real trials they have to go by physical proof and the guilty have someone to help represent them so they don’t just go NAH AH!
Lol
Do you know what's worse? You can't be on a jury if you have any legal expertise, even school related. First lecture of LAWS121 my professor told us we were now all nullified from jury duty
`
That's not controversial it's a well-known fact. It's also why there's sometimes the choice between being judged by a single entity instead of by 12.
`
It's also why it is often heavily regulated - why people with specific backgrounds (such as criminal) aren't considered. Why both the prosecution and the attorneys are usually allowed to vet and veto members during selection.
`
It's why juries often have to be unanimous, why they are sequestered to avoid outside influence, why they are directed on things to consider or disregard.
`
There is no such thing as a perfect system, and there never will be. But until there's a better alternative, we can only do the best we can with what we've got
`
Most judges are NOT well versed in all aspects of the law they may be faced with.
`
Lawyers will bombarde them with pages and pages of documentation which would discombobulating even to the most savvy law member. Points are often skewed, left out, or repeated.
`
Judges are simply human and a bad day, a misunderstanding, a deliberate bias can all effect the way they rule.
`
I think they did a study once that found that cases presented right after lunch were usually the most likely to land in a more lenient ruling at one point (but don't quote me on this)
.
Therefore having criminals off the jury does not prevent you being judged by a jury of your peers-- having them ON the jury would
.
Unless you are confessing to being a criminal, in which case we don't need a jury after all
http://www.twogag.com/archives/3198
While real trials they have to go by physical proof and the guilty have someone to help represent them so they don’t just go NAH AH!
Lol
Except for all the other systems...