Warp wrote:
>   It's still better to have people who have years of education and
> experience on criminology and forensic science in general than random
> people who have no such things at all.

That's what the evidentiary process is for. You get the appropriate 
experts in to inform the jury how things work. And the judge supposedly 
tells the jury how the law works.

>   By that logic judges should be random people without any education or
> experience on the field as well.

No, because the judge's job in a jury trial is to decide on matters of 
law. The jury's job is to decide on matters of fact. E.g., is the guy 
describing the scene lying or not? Jury. Is the police man allowed to 
present that evidence to the jury? Judge.

Different jobs, different people.

>   The police is experienced in handling criminals and getting them to
> justice. In the same way there are people who are experienced in judging
> people.

Yes, and you can get one of those easily if you want.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message