|
Why not skip ahead to abolishing the jury altogether and make it a tribunal of multiple judges? I mean, the whole idea of leaving the admissibility of evidence to a single judge is pretty absurd too, right? If they're all judges, they'll all have the training to determine for themselves what evidence is legally admissible. My sincere answer is that we should push to reform other more seriously flawed elements of the judicial system first. Prosecutors and judges who are incompetent or act in bad faith need to be held accountable. I'm not comfortable with handing even more power to the elites when they aren't even responsible with the power they already have.
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:National Service. Young people must give 2 years to the government, an option of which is to be a professional juror. Fill the jury rolls with the innocent and idealistic, those who haven't been corrupted yet. Plus its a great head start on a profession in law/government! I would have been much more likely to swallow the state's bullshit at 20 than I am now at 30, and I think there's plenty of other young, "idealistic" people who would be more willing to trust the cops because they "haven't been corrupted yet."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I'd really like to get a defense attorney's perspective on this.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 21:02
|
|