 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Personally I would feel uncomfortable having random people
> But you don't need to. You can opt (in the US at least) for a non-jury
> trial. You have the right, but not obligation, to a jury trial.
What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
judge?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> A better comparison would be whether you'd more likely see a movie the
> educated critics say is good and everyone else says is bad or vice versa.
I don't think crime is a matter of opinion. (At least not in most cases.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> does happen), if the judge doesn't feel that the jury's vote was
> appropriate (in either direction), the judge can set aside the verdict.
I'm pretty sure the judge doesn't get to set aside an innocent verdict,
in the US.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
> judge?
Just the judge. If you want a panel of experts, you get a jury trial and
bring the panel of experts yourself.
That's why I'm confused - are you talking about experts in
law/criminology/etc, or experts in the field you're being accused in?
And what might that field be? What if you disagree over what experts are
actually applicable?
In my experience of thinking about many of these things, once one says
"it should be different" (regardless of what large field "it" may
involve), when one drills down to the next level of detail, it makes
sense why it works the way it does. Taking (as an example) the
libertarian platform to the next level reveals that it really doesn't
make sense as is in the modern world.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I don't think crime is a matter of opinion. (At least not in most cases.)
I think if it's not a matter of opinion, then it wouldn't likely go to a
trial in the first place.
Here's an example of a case I was almost on, as explained by the judge
before the jury selection, meaning that nobody was really arguing over
these facts: Military man gets a ride home with two ladies he met at the
base. They stop at one lady's house to take care of something, leaving
him in the car. A few minutes later, he comes in looking for a glass of
water. Ladies are in bed, invites him to join her, they do their thing,
go on their way happily, all three together in the same car, drive him
home, drop him off. Husband comes home six months later to find his wife
six months pregnant. OK, now she claims she's been raped. Plus, the guy
came into her house without an invitation, so that's breaking and
entering plus burglary. Plus, she got pregnant, which is "grave bodily
harm." Which means he's up for life in prison. Makes sense yet?
Technically, if all that's true, he did commit a felony leading to grave
bodily injury by joining her in bed for her invitation, except she
didn't bother to report it until a year after it happened.
So, would you want that left up to the judge?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:40:24 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:26:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> I thought the Constitution (and the comissions created to impose it)
>> exists precisely to stop law-makers (and, in this case, judges) from
>> creating unfair laws.
>
> Sure, and the Constitution has really reigned in GWB, hasn't it? ;-)
>
> Jim
Did anyone think a piece of paper would stop him from doing anything?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:13:47 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> does happen), if the judge doesn't feel that the jury's vote was
>> appropriate (in either direction), the judge can set aside the verdict.
>
> I'm pretty sure the judge doesn't get to set aside an innocent verdict,
> in the US.
I'm not so sure about that - but if it was possible, it is extremely
rare. The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case
goes to the jury. Come to think of it, though, I think you're right -
double jeopardy might enter if he did that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:20:34 -0400, Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:40:24 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:26:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>
>>> I thought the Constitution (and the comissions created to impose it)
>>> exists precisely to stop law-makers (and, in this case, judges) from
>>> creating unfair laws.
>>
>> Sure, and the Constitution has really reigned in GWB, hasn't it? ;-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> Did anyone think a piece of paper would stop him from doing anything?
My point exactly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:58:53 -0400, Warp wrote:
> What is the alternative? A panel of experts in the field? Or a lone
> judge?
A lone judge is the alternative.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:57:30 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:01:52 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> > Imagine if the leaders of the country were decided by the vote of
>> > 12
>> > random people. *That* would be absurd.
>
>> There's every possibility that happened in the last two US presidential
>> elections, and every possibility that will continue in this one.
>
> That's not what I meant, and you know it.
Don't presume to tell me what I know and what I don't, please. I was in
fact making a point that the current US president was not in fact voted
for by the people of the US, and look at the numbnut we got. I think
that tells you what would happen if we turn the decision over to the
government.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
