thanks :)
Just wouldn't be fair;Judges are bought all the time.
I feel where your coming from;Casey killed little Caylee just because her baby girl got in the way of her partying.
...and justice for all. ?
Now i'm watching this case where Jodi arias brutally killed Travis Alexander over a trip to Mexico.
Cut and dry case,and the jury is still out.
...and justice for all.?
You have the right to waive a trial by a jury of your peers and instead have a judge ruling. This is a comfortable medium that is probably for the best. A jury of your peers would have to ALL find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are typically 12 jurors and only one judge.
Remember that you have to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, which means that, technically, EVERY juror needs to be 100% certain that you are guilty to find you guilty. This may be difficult for the prosecution, whose job is to prove your guilt since you are presumed innocent, as a good defense team might instill enough doubt in the jury to hang them (mistrial) or lead to an acquittal (good for you). However, the downside is that the jury members are typically common people, meaning that they might not have a good grasp of the laws, even though they are typically informed of the law the defendant has broken and what is needed to show their guilt. It has been suggested that jury ignorance may have wrongfully impacted some cases (e.x the jurors who ruled in favor of the police following the Rodney King incident).
On the other hand, you could waive your right to a jury trial and have a trial by judge. This may benefit you because the judge, given the extensive legal background they more than likely have, is much more likely to hold the prosecution to the burden of proof that is required to convict the defendant of a charge. This could mean that circumstantial evidence, which is more speculative and based on other evidence collected, might not be as credible with a judge as it could be with a jury. Much of the judge's job is to hear the case, consider the facts, interpret the law, and make an informed conclusion. The problem is theres only one of them, so if they think you're guilty, there's not much you can do.
So as you can see, there are advantages and disadvantages with either approach, and only the informed advice of a legal expert (I'm not one) will best aid the defendant in making such a decision. To save yourself the embarrassment, expense, and punishment by making sure to abide by the law.
Remember that when confronted by any law-enforcement official, or anyone who is attempting to prosecute you, that you ALWAYS have the right to remain silent, to retain counsel, and to refuse to be questioned without such counsel present.
I think it is most fair to have 12 people look at the facts in a case and decide the outcome rather then one. Judges dont always get it right just because they hold the title. I would got as far as to say that some Judges uphold thier own opinions first instead of upholding the law.
I like the way the Casey Anthony trial went. :P
Are you worried about the Jody Arias verdict. ???
Jury hear and study the case history. And Honb'le Judge give the decision. Different practice in different countries.Thank you.
That is how it is done in communist Russia, it don't work, we have judges making court rulings here in America now.
Your thought ?
thanks :)
