[Newsbot]

Title: Why Don't We Have Professional Jurors?
Category: Business
Posted By: googygood
Date: 2012-01-03 12:21:56
Canadian

[DanSC]

In the USA, a trial by a jury of one's peers is a constitutional right. That's one reason.

A trial with professional jurors might as well be a multi-judge tribunal, which I would definitely not support for criminal trials, either in the USA or at Gitmo.

[Gunnair]

DanSC DanSC:

In the USA, a trial by a jury of one's peers is a constitutional right. That's one reason.

A trial with professional jurors might as well be a multi-judge tribunal, which I would definitely not support for criminal trials, either in the USA or at Gitmo.

As difficult as you seem to have with this concept, you are posting on a Canadian forum where the Constitution of the United States means less than sweet fuck all.

[DanSC]

Gunnair Gunnair:

As difficult as you seem to have with this concept, you are posting on a Canadian forum where the Constitution of the United States means less than sweet fuck all.

Even though you do have a hard time with reading and grammar, I thought you might actually read blurb on the article before posting.

$1:

Many nations in Europe and Asia have professional juries, but not Canada or the USA. Why is this? How many of us really want to do jury duty? Are the juries really trying criminal cases effectively?

I was addressing the question asked. If that offends you, I'm not sure what to say.

[Gunnair]

DanSC DanSC:

Gunnair Gunnair:

As difficult as you seem to have with this concept, you are posting on a Canadian forum where the Constitution of the United States means less than sweet fuck all.

Even though you do have a hard time with reading and grammar, I thought you might actually read blurb on the article before posting.

$1:

Many nations in Europe and Asia have professional juries, but not Canada or the USA. Why is this? How many of us really want to do jury duty? Are the juries really trying criminal cases effectively?

I did read the article. She's not an American though apparently she gave you a courteous honourable mention.

[DanSC]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I did read the article. She's not an American though apparently she gave you a courteous honourable mention.

Then it appears she does give, as you so intellectually put it, a "fuck all."

[Gunnair]

DanSC DanSC:

Gunnair Gunnair:

I did read the article. She's not an American though apparently she gave you a courteous honourable mention.

Then it appears she does give, as you so intellectually put it, a "fuck all."

Wow... brain meltdown. Noted the short duration though.

You'll be okay, tiger.

[DanSC]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Wow... brain meltdown. Noted the short duration though.

You'll be okay, tiger.

Of course I'll be OK. I wasn't the one jumping to conclusions without reading everything. And concision is a good thing.

[Bruce_E_T]

I could go for professional jurors.

As it stands who knows most about the law and it's implementation?

I figure Lawyers and criminals, not the General Public.

[Lemmy]

The answer to the thread question is that juries almost always get it right. When justice isn't served and a case gets fucked up, it's fucked up by lawyers, judges or cops or politicians, not jurors. You don't need to fix things that aren't broken.

[Brenda]

Why have jurors at all? Why not 3 or 5 or even 7 judges, depending on the severity of the case?

[Lemmy]

Section 11(f)

[Brenda]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Section 11(f)

$1:

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;

I take it you mean this part?
Where does it say you need a jury? Even a single judge is called "tribunal".

[Bruce_E_T]

Brenda Brenda:

Why have jurors at all? Why not 3 or 5 or even 7 judges, depending on the severity of the case?

Sounds good. One would be sufficient most of the time I would think.

Lemmy Lemmy:

Section 11(f)

How annoying.

[Lemmy]

Brenda Brenda:

I take it you mean this part?
Where does it say you need a jury? Even a single judge is called "tribunal".

no, 11(f).