|
 |
andrel wrote:
>> You get the facts judged by the judge, yes? And doesn't the government
>> pay the judge?
>
> That's your American background kicking in again ;) You won't believe
> how often the government here will fund two (or more) parties with
> opposite goals, just to get a balance.
We do here too. The government pays the judge and both the prosecution and
defense lawyers in many cases. The government doesn't pay the juries.
If the judge or lawyers don't follow the laws set down by the legislature,
they get fired. If the jury doesn't follow the laws, the accused goes free
and the jury isn't in any trouble. That's the primary reason for having a
jury. They, in theory, get to overthrow bad laws by simply refusing to
convict anyone.
> It is probably a good way to get a judge angry when you meet him in
> private to suggest that because they are paid by the government that
> they will do what the government wants.
So, if you accused the judge of upholding the law because that's what he's
paid for, he'd be upset? Do you have judges that refuse to enforce certain
laws because they don't think the laws are good laws?
Incidentally, you *do* understand that every[1] court case gets to be heard
by a judge only, if the accused wants it that way? It's a right to have a
jury,not a requirement.
[1] AFAIK. Maybe stuff like death penalty cases, you *have* to have a jury
or something, but it's going to be a rare situation.
> Most likely you will get a
> speech on how the politics is failing to make decisions and leaves the
> difficult problems to the judges.
Of course they do. We do that here too. The judges don't have to justify
their decisions to keep their jobs.
> I am sorry but most of the examples that were used in the video were
> about irrelevant remarks IMO.
I'd probably have to watch the video to continue discussing the specifics.
> Well, it makes it very hard to get rid of a group of youths that
> continuously make noise in front of your house.
I'd rather have to solve that in a neighborly way than to have the abuse
going on in the USA right now. :-) And yes, I have some rather loud neighbors.
The funniest one was when the brother and sister were out on the street
arguing. Apparently Dad took away Sister's car for getting a ticket, and
Sister was complaining and Brother was saying it makes sense. The funny
thing was that I never before realized you could actually composes sentences
with more than 50% of the words being variations on the word "fuck". It was
rather amusing to listen to.
A month later, I hear someone walking past in the evening chatting
pleasantly about the fucking bitch who mouthed off at that cocksucker at
work who... you get the idea. I look out the window, and it's the parents
taking their dog for a walk.
> 'we know it is illegal, but as long as the council has not appointed a
> place for him to park we won't do anything about it.
I'd think you'd need some civil way (as in, not involving the police) to
enforce that sort of thing, then.
>> This is true. On the other hand, if the evidence isn't valid, the
>> judge doesn't let the jury see it, either. In theory, at least. I
>> think you're underestimating how savvy people are, too.
>
> I just go by the opinion of this law professor and the police officer
> that did the second part of the lecture.
You're also reading PC Magazine's comparison of the performance of Windows
to OSX. They're telling you the horror stories that go wrong and all the
ways it can get you in trouble. If they stress all the ways it can go wrong,
then you're in the best possible shape.
>> And again, that's the police and not the courts.
> It was only a (partly unrelated, I knew) story, that is all.
Understood. :-) The police have been known to be pretty awful here, too.
I'm not sure why they don't just videotape everything that happens. Well, I
know, I mean, I'm not sure it's a bad idea to require that. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
