Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

The Professional Jury

Posted Jun 17, '13 at 5:10pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

either causing them to become immune, per se, to the horrors of such deeds

thats why you have more then just 1 judge. there are more to keep each other in line and to see every case as separate. judges are often not allowed to work whit each other for a period of time after a case is closed.
there are rules to prevent their job to become routine.
and i think you already need some sort of immune system for those horrors to start whit. after all they have to judge independently.

become so disgusted with seeing such constant actions that assumptions become created quickly.

like in science, you need to have evidence for the assumptions. 1 judge has to be able to have good reasons to convince the other judges.

but yea it happens. it's a flaw. but i think it happens less then members of the jury being blackmailed or bribed in the other system.
 

Posted Jun 17, '13 at 6:16pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

I'm posting so partydevil's post is visible.

 

Posted Jun 17, '13 at 9:48pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,782 posts

Knight

I think this "jury system" sucks.
Law is just like any other profession and you have to devout your life to it to learn it, and be called an expert, but unlike other proffessions, failing to do your job adequately can mean that some one's life be destroyed or a potential threat to society be let go.


Actually that sounds like a good argument in favor of having a jury as then you have more than one person to make such an important determination.

That also gets into a pro to having a professional juror. Such a person would then have special training in making such judgements.

On a possible down side, you could have people who are more interested in the pay check than what happens to someone in each case.
 

Posted Jun 18, '13 at 4:36am

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

Actually that sounds like a good argument in favor of having a jury as then you have more than one person to make such an important determination.

i guess you mend in favor of having a jury like in the usa.
but a professional jury should of course consist of more then 1 judge.

(i find it hard to understand in your post what part is about what system)
 

Posted Jun 18, '13 at 5:00am

nichodemus

nichodemus

13,299 posts

Knight

I don't see the point in a professional jury, and much less a jury. It's dealing with the law, and to do so, would logically require the jury to have studied law as a profession. I won't trust the average Joe to know the in and outs of the legal system, to act as impartial jurors. Thus, that leaves the option of having a professional jury if we still are bent on retaining a jury system. But this would seem rather pointless, since much of the training prescribed for them these days would amount to a couple of years, or to ''semi-train'' them as New Zealand has proposed.. If we want a professional jury, it would be much better to train more judges, increase the panel of judges, or recall retired legal professionals to sit on the jury, rather than what people are proposing today.

 

Posted Jun 18, '13 at 5:29am

partydevil

partydevil

5,130 posts

i wasn't aware of that kind of jury as is proposed in new zealand. i was seeing the collage of judges as the professional jury.

 

Posted Jun 18, '13 at 10:44am

thepunisher93

thepunisher93

1,863 posts

In bigger cases, usually a bench of judges sits and decides

 
Reply to The Professional Jury

You must be logged in to post a reply!