Trial by jury, or trial by judge? Is one better than the other?
Do non-common law countries use juries? I know Germany doesn't, not sure of the rest of Europe.
Also, law thread
>>476013
Judge. Juries are unreliable, unrepentant criminals shouldn't get off scot free because they managed to make half a dozen citizens or so with barely any understanding of the law sympathetic of their sob story.
>>476013
Depends on whether the Judges are corrupt or not.
>>476055
>criminals shouldn't get off scot free because they managed to make half a dozen citizens or so with barely any understanding of the law sympathetic of their sob story.
the criminals never address the jury directly though. It's their attorney. Also with proper jury instructions, I think juries are more fair.
That's a big problem though, is jury instructions and understanding reasonable doubt
>>476013
> then I said
> what do you think I am? A Fish?
Juries for sure, particularly when the system is biased in favor of the defense. Judges wield too much power with one person and can let their agenda sway them too easily. Normal people have the same problems, but having twelve of them means they're more likely to debate and moderate themselves (Or at least deadlock).
unanimous decision by both
judge for the professionalism
jury to prevent elitism and cronyism
by judge
and civil law
anything other is just, well, weird to be honest
judges going on power trips or dishing out sentences because of their hurt feelings and/or lack of knowledge?
juries letting their own prejudices get the better of them and influence what is supposed to be an impartial proceedings?
no thanks
>>476120
>Judges wield too much power with one person and can let their agenda sway
>>476122
>jury to prevent elitism and cronyism
This is only a problem in the US where judges are elected.
In Canada and the UK judges are appointed, higher ranking judges are appointed by royal authority. Maybe sounds undemocratic and silly, but it works here
If you're going to have your peers judge for you, why not appoint a neutral judge and judges that you know are partial for your cause?
>>476118
Good post
>>476093
>the criminals never address the jury directly though.
Well of course, but in the end the attorney, the prosecuted's defense and the testimony of his appointed witnesses, all these things are supposed to work in concert to convince the jury board of the defense's ideas of what the verdict should be. They don't address the board directly, but everything from their expression to what family members they bring to the proceedings can be manipulated to touch the sensibilities of the board.
Basically, I see juries as doing nothing but adding drama as a viable defense mechanism to the legal proceedings.
>>476129
>juries letting their own prejudices get the better of them and influence what is supposed to be an impartial proceedings?
the purpose of a jury is to be judged by your peers because they can relate to the accused maybe? Jury selection is a big process and involves both prosecution (the crown) and the defense.
With proper jury instructions, i.e. explaining reasonable doubt, and the concept of a unanimous jury, I think jury's add more humanity to the administration of justice.
>>476142
>all these things are supposed to work in concert to convince the jury board of the defense's ideas of what the verdict should be. They don't address the board directly, but everything from their expression to what family members they bring to the proceedings can be manipulated to touch the sensibilities of the board.
That definitely depends on the type of case. Most often all the defense has to do is raise reasonable doubt, not argue "he dindu nothin, he 's a good kid"
The OJ verdict had nothing to do with the jury sympathizing with OJ. It had to do with the jury understanding reasonable doubt, and acknowleding the police fudging the evidence fucked up the whole case
>>476159
That's the thing though, the concept of bringing humanity to the administration of justice, and of reasonable doubt... call me detached, or too caught up with the formalities of law to remember the human element, but I see those as things a professional judge could handle.
Court proceedings, at least where I am, are generally open to the public after all, it's an entirely open affair, and the argument that it's somehow a mechanism against cronyism doesn't hold water because I believe we must start from an assumption of good will from the involved parties, or else we could very well say "but them juries are being bought/coerced!" too.
Ultimately I don't DESPISE the institution, I just find it to be an odd and ultimately irrelevant system.
But hey, I AM from a civil law country.
>>476055
A judge can overturn an entire jury.
Neither is apriori better. Juries work best in small and somewhat homogeneous societies with at least a minimal degree of familiarity and moral cohesiveness. It's like with common law, it only works in very specific contexts and is contingent upon a myriad of factors that are themselves extra-jurisprudential.
There's also a question of values, whether you tend to appreciate professionalism and consistency that judges offer or the sense of public justice by peers that juries offer.
>>476133
Still suffers from the same intrinsic problem. To get appointed, they need to curry favor with the right people, just as an elected judge does.
I don't really care about how the judge gets there, because at the end of the day, they're still human and subject to the same faults as the rest of us. I prefer twelve peers randomly selected vs a single or panel of judges elected or appointed to their position because after a lot of time they'll all suffer from groupthink or in the case of the single judge, simply subject to his whimsy of how he feels about the law at any given point.
And yeah, juries are subject to whimsy as well, but with a random selection of multiple people from different walks of life, you're likely to wind up with a lot of competing thought and multiple viewpoints of the same actions, which when debated together as a group, can help to come up with a more neutral opinion.
>>476633
>To get appointed, they need to curry favor with the right people, just as an elected judge does.
But they're not worried about re-election. And getting appointed as a judge takes like 8 years or something crazy
>>476556
what country are you from? Cases can go to a court of appeal, but that's essentially a whole other hearing. The jury can't come out and say Guilty and the judge immediately say fuck that, not- guilty
at least not in Canada and the UK
>>476013
If you want a political trial, jury trials take longer, so you've got more change of activating politics outside the court.
If you want to be tried on fact, go with a fucking judge.
>>476760
They can in Australia. Perverse juries regularly get overturned.
>>477143
Yeah, but in australia people don't have rights
I recently got a jury duty form in the mail that I had to complete
Here's the description
I'm in Ontario, Canada fyi
>>476556
If I recall correctly, a judge can only overturn a jury in cases where the jury's judgement goes directly against clear proof. For example, a jury can't say "Anon didn't stab his wife" when there's video recording and multiple eyewitnesses of Anon stabbing his wife. A Jury CAN, however, say "Anon is not guilty of murder" for one reason or another.
What if the Jury was a bunch of Judges?
>>476013
A jury of judges
>>478240
They can't be though
If you don't have entrenched law guaranteeing trial by jury, you're basically a serf.
>>476055
That's not remotely what happens in a trial by jury. Legal questions are essentially never presented to them.
>>477206
In a criminal case, a jury's verdict of not guilty is 100% inviolable. A guilty verdict, or any verdict in a civil case, is subject to judicial review, but the review is supposed to be highly deferential.
>>478668
Good post
>>478283
> What's a layman judge.
>>476375
The idea of a "jury by peers" was to prevent you being judged by someone above your station who might not give a shit if you get justice or not, or indeed if you live or die. Also I imagine to prevent kangaroo courts of yokels being used to try nobility.
Judges are almost always going to be drawn from the upper echelons of society. Class prejudice is a real thing and I would feel less secure as a blue-collar Joe being judged by a guy who makes 4 (or more) times my annual salary and has very little background in common with me.
>>476055
Juries are more likely to judge based on common sense rather than the letter of the law. But, they're less likely to abuse their power over particular biases than a single judge. >>476754
>But they're not worried about re-election.
So nobody holds them accountable for bad decisions...
>And getting appointed as a judge takes like 8 years or something crazy
This doesn't change anything. It is still subject to cronyism.
Jury trial.
Better to let 10 guilty men walk free than 1 innocent man be unjustly imprisoned.
When I was in the military they liked doing everything by tribunal.
It seemed to work out.
Juries only work if the society itself has a modicum of intelligence in the common man.
Non-common law country Finland reporting in and we don't have juries. And I think it should stay that way.
Admittedly it's a bit more inflexible system with just judges and the written law but it gives more stable, reliable and equal results than juries which tend to take more influence from whims and the personal emotions of the juror(?)s and end up with harsher verdicts
>>478794
>Judges are almost always going to be drawn from the upper echelons of society
Not really true in a country
1)Where literally anyone has access to the education in university that is necessary for becoming a judge. For free.
2)Where judges, while they do get a reasonably high pay, aren't bombarded with insane amounts of money and an elite status.
3)Where they are just regular public servants.
The other faults of the system don't really mean that judges can't be from various backgrounds
>>476013
The problem with juries is that they are comprised by people on this site and by people you see on the street and by people on Facebook who claim the moon landings were staged. They are comprised by idiots who shouldn't be trusted to regulate their own breathing patterns, never mind the fate of a man.
>>479025
This is facile. Simply because a person has access to a decent education does not mean they make use of that opportunity. The people who do make the most of that opportunity still largely are people who middle class. That said, even if people from working-class backgrounds did qualify as lawyers and establish a legal practice, they still need to be selected by the established elite in order to make it as a judge. It's not as open as you might think.
>>478668
>If you don't have entrenched law guaranteeing trial by jury, you're basically a serf.
Wut
>>479310
They are more likely to think Person A innocent (who is from the same race, social background and town) than Person B innocent (who is from a different race, social background and town). That's simply how the mind works, even without the subject realizing it.
>>479289
Obviously background affects the use of opportunities but it seems that you live in a very different environment when it comes to these things. It's a bit difficult to explain since I'm a bit lacking in the terminology in english, but the people who become judges in our country are just basic bureaucrats that have studied law and work as "esittelijöinä" in cases, basically helping "the real judges" and learning from experience, go through auscultation(?) and then when they have loads of experience in their line of work and a place open for a judge they'll be promoted by a committee. It's not an election to win in the hearts of an "elite", it's like getting a promotion on any kind of a regular job.
>>479323
>who is from the same race, social background and town) than Person B innocent (who is from a different race, social background and town).
That's why both the crown and the defence pick the jury. The verdict still has to be unanimous
How does tax law work in common law countries? Surely it has to be codified to a greater extent than your average law?
>>479522
Yeah, I am aware of how some countries do it. In England and Wales, we have two professions (solicitors and barristers) whereas in jurisdictions such as Singapore (and I assume yours), they have an entirely different track for judges. It's an interesting thought, but in our country there is still a tradition of the middle classes ruling the civil service and assuming positions of high authority. Adding judges into that mix would be even worse than it is right now.
>>479574
I think you have been watching too many US courtroom dramas.
>>479636
>Crown
>US courtroom dramas.
Choose one
>>479688
I noticed Crown. I am saying you're not describing how this works in the UK and perhaps you've spent too much time watching US TV.
A-Level Law student?
>>479636
>I think you have been watching too many US courtroom dramas
How does that post have anything to do with US courtroom TV?
>>479733
In Canada both defence and crown select the jury m8
I guess we have different systems
Same Crown tho
>>479733
How does jury selection work in the UK?
>>478668
All of my this.
>>476118
A gay fish!
>>476142
>Basically, I see juries as doing nothing but adding drama as a viable defense mechanism to the legal proceedings
This
The law is complex and intricate. If I'm ever charged pls let me stand before 12 people who know shit, don't want to be there and are used to accept "facts" at face value. I do not want to face a professional expert with years of hard study and experience under his belt
Common law sucks tbqh
>>480885
Muh special rule book!
>>480951
It is the will of the people via elections.
>>480975
Implying elections represent the majority
With common law the law is building on past rulings and statutes are subject to judicial review and new precedents
>Implying you can codify every possible scenario which could be subject to law
>Implying each case which violates a codified law shouldn't be compared to previous cases to maintain consistency in the application of law
>Implying politicians aren't populists
>>481008
>Implying you can codify every possible scenario which could be subject to law
You clearly have no idea about civil law. In civil law code puts rules as broad as possible and in case of legal loophole, judge fills it by creating law. And it is a tradition coming perfected from roman empire.
>yuropoors unironically dislike jury trials
Feels good being free.
>>481024
>anglocucks unironically like arbittary legal system with no legal security
>>481012
>and in case of legal loophole, judge fills it by creating law
That is literally common law, We just don't use a civil code. Governments pass statutes all the time but they're all subject to precedents
In Canada an example of a law being made via precedent is a guy in Nova Scotia shot a guy driving a truck toward his house
Until then there was a statute about self defence (based on a precedent) which you could only use lethal self defence if you are defending yourself or others from lethal force in your dwelling, so like shooting an armed burglar
The judge ruled this guy acted in self defence because he was protecting his house from damage from the guy driving a truck at it, and since they lived in a rural area the police were 20minutes away.
So now in any future case of a guy driving his truck into someone's house, it would be lawful to shoot at them in self defence if there are people in the house
That's an example that happened here recently
The "self defence from trucks driving into your house act" doesn't need to exist
>>481051
Swiss Civil Code Article 1
The law applies according to its wording or interpretation to all legal
questions for which it contains a provision.
2 In the absence of a provision, the court4 shall decide in accordance
with customary law and, in the absence of customary law, in accordance
with the rule that it would make as legislator.
3 In doing so, the court shall follow established doctrine and case law.
About trucks running into houses, Swiss Code of Obligations article :52
1 Where a person has acted in self-defence, he is not liable to pay
compensation for loss or damage caused to the person or property of
the aggressor.
2 A person who damages the property of another in order to protect
himself or another person against imminent damage or danger must
pay damages at the court’s discretion.
3 A person who uses force to protect his rights is not liable in damages
if in the circumstances the assistance of the authorities could not have
been obtained in good time and such use of force was the only means
of preventing the loss of his rights or a significant impairment of his
ability to exercise them.
You don't have to autistically put every case into code like prussians tried to did. Like you see judge interprets the text and gives the judgement.
>>481041
I think the will of the people and time-tested custom are less arbitrary than laws which can be immediately changed by whatever socialist yuropoor party is currently in power actually.
>>476013
A jurry of peers is worthless if said peers are worthless.
A judge is trained to interpret the law, however said interpretations are easy to sway.
Law system is kinda fucked in either direction, let's talk about trial by combat.
>>481068
>Like you see judge interprets the text and gives the judgement
That's how judges deal with statutes here in Canada. We have a criminal code which says you can use as much force necessary to defend your dwelling to prevent someone from forcibly entering your dwelling without legal authority
The truck driving into the guys house technically doesn't fit that description, he wasn't trying to enter the house, he was trying to hit the guy on his front porch with his truck
So the precedent set by that ruling, that it is lawful to shoot a guy driving a truck at your house, will be applied in future cases and statutes about self defence won't need to be reinterpreted
In Texas you can even have jury trials for divorce cases.
So a red pilled Texan jury will protect you from unreasonable alimony and losing custody, meanwhile some SJW French judge will rob you blind and you'll never see your kids again.
>>481156
>French Judge
>in Texas
Well, if we start with an assumption that "my system" is full of reasonable people while "your system" is not we're not going to get anywhere, are we.
>>481156
>In Texas you can even have jury trials for divorce cases
In Canada I don't think we have that but it makes sense. There are actually a lot of precedents here which protect the husband from losing custody, it's something like 60/40 mother or father and joint custody is common
I don't think a lot of divorce law is codified here
>>481538
>HUE
wtf is this
>>481594
Brasil, meu nego.
>>481855
I thought hue was an acronym
>>481041
>no legal security
lolwut. a jury is an additional layer of security for the system.
Juries (or similar systems) are kind of shit. They either push for convicting someone despite the evidence not being strong enough or spend half the time in court by falling asleep.
Doesn't help that our variant takes them from political parties.
>>482050
>a jury is an additional layer of security for the system.
I'd rather have power for my class than security for the system.
I always lurk these threads and this is the first time I'm posting here... Is being a lawyer ''hard''? I live in Chile and my teachers say I have the potentional to study law at one the best universities here... But there are just so many things about law I'm not that aware of, except for the fact that we have Chilean Law here and not Common Law or anything like that
>>482291
idk man, my dad's a lawyer and he does well. I want to go to law school in a couple years
>>477179
>French
>>482395
half english half french. That's pretty much all of Canada
>>482543
It's more like 70% English 30% French, dude.
>>482577
I mean government documents and stuff, everything is half English half French. Yeah population wise it's probably less than 30% who speak French at home
>>480572
Randomly assigned and if a juror thinks they are too close to the case, they tell the judge of their reason. There is no selection or examination by the Crown or defence.
I can't understand how people don't like jury trials. Do people really love living under tyranny that much? Under arbitrary law decided by a single person? Please tell me these people are not Americans. I don't want to believe America has degraded this far.
>>482976
>I can't understand how people don't like jury trials.
Juries convict more often than judges.
>>482977
And?
>>476013
>Trial by jury, or trial by judge? Is one better than the other
It's really hard to say. On one hand, giving all the power to one guy seems to like a bad idea. On the other hand, giving all the power to a small group of people who just want to get shit over with and go home seems just as bad.
>>482979
Do I look like the kind of guy who enjoys being convicted?
>>482976
When a lawyer walks out of the court and waits for a jury to deliberate, that lawyer has no idea how things will turn out. Does he not know because the facts of the case are too complex and he cannot reason what actually happened? No, that's not it. He doesn't know what is going to happen because juries are capricious idiots who decide matters of law on random features such as whether the defendant cried when they said they never did it, or whether their momma cried, or or because someone else in the jury is particularly vocal and confident so other jury members follow their lead (when in reality that member is just as much of an idiot as the rest of them). Having juries in our legal system is like playing with fire.
If I'm an unsympathetic case trying to get off the hook based on a legal technicality, I'm going with the legal expert every time. Hoping that he'll disregard his feelings and simply apply the law (which is not guaranteed but seems more probable than with average jurors):
>E.g. My client admits to distributing racist cartoons all over the city but it might not actually be criminal because of this obscure statutory provision that was only tested once back in 1922...
Conversely, if I'm a sympathetic case without any particularly nuanced legal issues involved, I'm probably better off convincing 12 morons of my "good boy" status and letting the judge go fuck himself.
>E.g. Yeah I got caught with marijuana in my car but if you listen to the whole story and see how productive and well behaved I am and listen to these other people talk about how bright my future was if I wasn't hanging out with the wrong crowd that day and...
All strategy.
>>482977
Doesn't prove anything, it's not unreasonable to think that the defense attorneys of guilty men would rather try to pull the wool over the eyes of a jury than a judge.
>>483181
A judge is probably more familiar with the idea of Blackstone's Formulation and more familiar with what the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard actually means. I think it is unreasonable.
>>483192
This. Then again I know if you're guilty you plead or you go refusal to plead, entry or indef.
>>482233
There's little difference
>>483357
There's little difference between the security of the system, dominated by the bourgeoisie, and power for my class the proletariat?
Cool idiocy bro.
>>482291
I'm not from Chile so I can't say anything for sure but I'm from another civil law country, so it might be somewhat similar
It's okay not to know anything about the law before studying, 'cus that's what the studies are for, but you should know that you'll need a sharp memory for detail, patience to read read and read and know beforehand that in countries like ours the job of a lawyer is more like independent "puzzle solving" and very exact rather than being a flamboyant speaker for justice who wins their cases by winning it the hearts of the people or some shit.
>>482976
In a civil law system you don't have to rely on something as useless like random peoples' opinions just to escape from the tyranny on judges. When the law is written it's more power to the people who can affect the law by political processes and less power for lawyers, judges and juries to to whatever the fuck they feel like.
Can anyone explain why I've seen all sorts of retarded shit on the news done by judges? I don't have confidence in a guy off the street but, holy shit, give me 12 of them over one judge any day of the week.
>>484021
Haven't seen any of this. What kind of shit do you mean?
>>476013
civil law legal systems do have juries but only for the more severe criminal cases.
There is talk to shelve them tough because some media fags are nagging about it being "unfair" and "to costly"
bloody media fuckwits, don't even know what art. 1382 BW but will still talk like it knows jack shit about the law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cour_d%27assises
>>476013
does Justice even exists? is it Justice to put a murderer in jail? it doesn't bring back the one he killed.. can you "even up" injustices with law truly?
>>484070
Justice isn't about undoing the done and neither is law. Now get out and make your own thread if you want to discuss justice in such a basic way that it doesn't even add up to be philosophical.
>>484226
>Justice isn't about rectifying injustices
>justice isn't about restoring to order what was done wrong
kill thyself
>>484262
Anon I think you might be reading things that aren't there just so that you can argue with people
>restoring order, rectifying
Something I too do believe to be the law's job
>undoing done
Which just physically can't be done (therefore, "putting someone in jail doesn't bring the dead back" isn't a relevant argument, rather the question is will the time in jail prevent other injustices)
Not quite the same, yeah?
>>484070
Wrong thread
>>484021
You'll have to be more specific
>>476055
>sob story
But juries are not concerned with matters of mitigating circumstances, are they? Afaik, the judge is the one who decides the weight of the condemnation.
>>484324
"aren't meant to be"
and
"aren't"
are different things
Juries are generally bloody and consider accusation as guilt.
>>484339
>Juries are generally bloody and consider accusation as guilt
Often the result of poor jury instructions
What is the expression kangaroo court?
>>484403
>kangaroo court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court
1 sec in google
>>484403
It was the nuremburg equivalent for the emu wars.
>>484408
Explain easy please
>>484440
It's a court proceeding set up for show. So prosecutors may formally charge a guy for terrorism and throw him in jail but they put him through trial to make it seem legitimate
>>483362
>he unironically believes in the labor system of value
>he unironically believes that a "worker's state" can avoid the creation of a bureaucratic class
>he unironically believes in false consciousness
>he unironically believes that destroying pricing information will lead to rational economic planning
>>482291
i'm a lawyer and it's largely just doing paperwork and research. there are things i dislike (long hours, clients trying to cheat you on fees fucking constantly, shitty job market) but overall it's good work if you can get it. i'm in burgerstan, though, so i can't really speak to how things would be in your country.
>>484460
>i'm a lawyer and it's largely just doing paperwork and research
You're a solicitor
What do you do, estates?
>>482983
Solution: use more than one judge for cases that aren't minor things like speeding tickets.
>>484280
my argument is that justice is a selfish desire that's derived from a wrong philosophical view point, crime always comes from either a person who isn't virtues or a law that caters for something that at its core isn't a vice, humanity's obsession with justice is pitiful and it's obvious that the law doesn't work towards it but towards social stability, now if social stability is what laws are for no jury or judge is making a morally good choice only less evil and it matters not which one of them is executing the judgment because the lesser evil isn't good in itself, thus there are two options, 1.making a society where vices are non-existent, or in other words one where crime doesn't exists
2. stop being illusioned by our faulty morals and recognise that the only goal of laws is social stability and make up the most efficient system for keeping society stable.
no judge or jury makes a right or wrong decision from a moral view point and claims for justice are disgusting, the judicial system is of practical means and should be looked at as such.
>tldr humanity is shit and discussing what's ethically right or wrong for a judicial system is vomit inducing
>>476614
This you autists
>>484460
>>he unironically believes in the labor system of value
>>he unironically believes that a "worker's state" can avoid the creation of a bureaucratic class
>>he unironically believes in false consciousness
>>he unironically believes that destroying pricing information will lead to rational economic planning
straw man mate, straw man.
>>484460
>i'm a lawyer
Given your first retarded >implying comments I highly doubt you're a lawyer unless you cheated the LSAT and fucked your profs.
Confirmed for having a summer job as the file boy at daddy's lawfirm
>>484547
What the fuck are you going on about?
>justice is a selfish desire
>crime always comes from either a person who isn't virtues or a law that caters for something that at its core isn't a vice
And jesus I should greentext your whole rant. Is it just your bad English or are you drunk?
>>484596
*virtuous
and what didn't you understand in selfish? or desire? It's a desire or a want that should be execrated
>>484590
I dunno anon, you might be holding all lawyers to a higher standard than they can achieve. I'm pretty sure they're a mixture including sharp minds, blathering fools and everything in between.
>>484614
I understand the words perfectly well, but your sentences simply aren't sensible. "Justice is a selfish desire" is like saying "This potato is a rampant vile": meaningless. Justice can be defined in many ways but "a selfish desire" isn't one of them.
Your whole post is more like a dadaist poem than an argument. I assume that it's because you feel so strongly for the issue or something that you'd want to simplify and dramatize things to such an extent that they no longer have anything to do with reality anymore.
>>484649
let me elaborate, seeking justice, as a concept, is wrong because it's not a realistic thing to achieve, it's illogical, you just can't get justice for anything truly because subjectivity exists and believing in justice is believing in an illusion = being irrational.
thus my criticism of looking at the judicial system as anything but a social stabilizer and my disgust for the words right and wrong or better or worse in relation to the modern judicial system. clear enough for you?
>>484717
Yeah, now you actually made sense and I can pretty much agree with you to a certain degree
>>484717
>justice
Justice is a subjective term. A basic definition would be reparations, upholding the law to societal standards (conventions, also subjective) and applying proportional punishment to the convicted
>>484805
sure doublethink yourself to believe that "justice" had been done, but it doesn't reprimand anything, putting offenders inside a jail doesn't make the wrong action they had committed right.
>>484867
>jail doesn't make the wrong action
Punishment isn't about reparations but civil suits are
>>484617
I can confirm this.
>>485383
>flaws
>Marxism
Choose one
>>476013
Why do criminals never blackmail the judge/jury?
>>485510
>Why do criminals never blackmail the judge/jury?
What leverage would a criminal have against them?
>>485510
>criminals
If they're in court they're still innocent
>>485575
>How about threatening to kill their loved ones for example.
Because they're in jail? And if they're out on bail then they'd just get arrested again
Besides jurors are never named and they won't know who they are
>>485657
What about criminals who are involved in organized crime and have people that can blackmail for them. But I guess you're right about the jurors being anonymous, so this could only be done in a law system without jurors.
>>484867
You can't just redefine justice and then claim that punishment is not just.
Justice (specifically proportional retribution) is an end of itself. Nobody needs to justify it to a low test pathologically altruistic beta like yourself.
>>476013
TRIAL BY STONE
>>485675
Well I guess there's that, I'm not sure if the judge would have protection from that but if the judge receives a threat "acquit him or I'll fuk ur mom"
Then ofc the judge will report it then the judge can just drag the trial on for weeks until an arrest is made then convict the guy anyway
>>485816
>>485785
Your definition of justice is a compromising one, you just affirm my claim that true justice is impossible to achieve and humanity illusions itself to believe "justice" had been done even though the subjective sufferings are impossible to reprimand because they are by nature subjective and physically impossible to equalize, as I said the only function law provides is that of a social stabilizer, and looking at the suffering of other people as fixing the situation or being morally right or upholding justice is an execution of doublethink and is blameable, justice doesn't exist, only control through punishment of what a certain society considers to be dangerous for itself, if they'd be honest they would at least find a more efficient way to uphold law and crime wouldn't have happened or even better become philosophicaly advanced enough to not need governing. But nope, people like you rather accept the illusion, give legitimacy to the system at work and help keep our society as a well oiled machine that transfers power to the elite.
>>485510
Pablo Escobar did
>>485949
T. Reddit
>>481080
>>486021
Story?
>>486229
Sorry for off topic but can someone explain the "t. " meme to me?
>>476133
Judges are only elected at local level. State and District are appointed.
>>490206
My understanding is T. represents the status of said poster to validate their post
Judges are allowed to excuse the jury to instruct witnesses
T. I'm a court clerk
>>490282
so it's the same as "source - "
What does it stand for
One thing I would like to add:
In the constitution when you sre guaranteed a right to a trial by your peers, I think they meant people who have known you for a long time and could adequately judge your chatacter.
Since most people back then lived in smaller towns and knew the same people all their lives.
>>490310
No idea senpai
>>490206
>>490310
It comes from a finnish word.
t. /int/ expert
>>490316
Courts should be objective and non biased, mate. Such a relation between the people involved in the case and the people ruling/being in the jury would be grounds for disqualification here (I'm sorry if the wording is odd, there's a specific word for it in my language).
>>484717
There are courts which deal simply in equitable principles. Is this less subjective of a term?
>>488814
Google, alternatively watch Narcos.
But tl;dr is that he kidnapped the families of politicians and bombed the shit out of Mexico to get a reduced sentence.
>>494602
is Narcos a doc?
>>490316
This is not really what they meant. Any legal historian could answer your hypothesis with ease. The Yanks did not invent trial by peers as it was long practised in English Law. In English Law, juries had nothing to do with familiarity with the accused.
>>476133
UK lawfag. All judges are appointed by the Crown, or royal authority. Not simply the higher rankings judges.
You're welcome for the clarification.
>>496378
When were juries not comprised of JPs or Magistrates?
>>476129
>judges going on power trips
You have no idea how common law works, clearly. Judges don't merely make up the law as they go along, basing on their prejudices. There is a principle called stares decisis and it means that decisions of previous judges form a consistent body of law. No judge is sentencing to people because of personal dislike or something equally as arbitrary.
>>478240
In the UK, we have something called magistrates' courts which deal with petty offences. Magistrates are a bunch of laypeople and three of these laypeople form a court.
As for the practical considerations of having professional judges form juries, there are simply not enough judges in the world to do that and the legal system would slow down to a standstill. Also, we do have "juries" of judges for the most serious cases in the more senior courts where 3 or more judges sit at a time to form a decision.
>>496383
Let me think ... never?
>>496416
Yeah, sure, bye.
Do more common law history m80.
>>496438
You've confused histories. The people who served in early juries were appointed and called jures. But they were not justices of the peace or magistrates, as you put it. They were two different and distinct posts.
Where the fuck did you do your law degree?
I think I read somewhere that the jury has an unspoken power to render the case presented as null and void.
>>496382
>You're welcome for the clarification.
in Ontario this is how it works;
the Law Society of Upper Canada takes a bunch of applications from people who want to be judges. They then go through an interview process. Those names are then recommended to the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario (HM the Queen's vice royal in Ontario) and he then formally appoints them with royal authority. So really, he's just following the advice of the Law Society.
Federally, the Prime Minister selects judges whom the Governor General (the Vice Royal for Canada) considers to be appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada. To be a supreme court judge there are a few requirements; there are 9 judges. 3 need to be from Quebec, 3 from Ontario, 2 from the West and one from Atlantic Canada. They are appointed not on recommendation from the law society, but the Prime Minister himself.
I was wrong though, all judges here are appointed by royal authority, but the lower ranking judges have to go through an application and interviwing process though
>>498097
btw
Upper Canada is synonymous with Ontario and Lower Canada with Quebec, based on the flow of the Saint Lawrence river.
quick history lesson;
After conquest and the defeat of the French in Quebec, the British let Quebec keep their language, their religion (catholicism) and their law.
The two colonies were administered separately (started in 1791 continued until 1867 confederation) as lower and upper Canada and various institutions formed during this time remained, such as the law society of upper Canada.
In 1841, upper and lower Canada merged into the Province of Canada, which was one colonial authority with two provinces within it, Ontario and Quebec. Then the two east coast colonies, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, entered into confederation in 1867 with the province of Canada, the British North America Act aka BNA Act aka Constitution Act 1867, AKA first part of the codified Canadian constitution.
The BNA Act is just a division of powers between the Federal government and the provincial governments. And it still stands today; such as natural resources, healthcare and education are all realms of the provinces which is outlined in the BNA act.
In 1982 Canada "brought home the constitution". Until this time the highest court for Canada was the JCPC in the UK, and we were still subject to the British constitution, which we couldnt change. In 1982 HM the Queen signed the Canadian constitution, the Canada Act, aka Constitution Act 1982, and Canada broke all legal ties with Britain, and entrenched a Charter of rights and Freedoms into our constitution, similar to how the US bill of rights is entrenched.
Canada retained the monarchy and HM the Queen is the head of state of Canada, represented in Ottawa by her vice royal the Governor General, and in each province by the vice royal, the Lieutenant Governor.
The vice royals can exercise almost all royal authority that Hm the Queen could.
HM the Queen is Equally the queen of Canada, as she is of the UK.
>>498185
> and their law.
Quebec Civil Code. Although federally Quebec is subject to the common law
The perpetrator should be judged on the spot by a certified Law Distributer™, if the perpetrator doesn't comply he will be executed on the spot.
>>498251
T. Mohammad bin Nayef
>>476120
The system is biased for the prosecution. The defense is always an uphill battle, even when they are truly innocent.
