should we no longer have trials?

Question

i am confident, that the founding fathers had no reason to see nor any way to guess of the advances in technology and therefore built the trial by jury system that we use.
why, with all of the video surveilence around and absolute proof of guilt (on occasion), like DNA, can we just not skip the trial?
I realize that this could not be in every case and often it would be business as usual, but sometimes it is really unneeded. don't you think so? or do you disagree.
please do not make up your own examples and argue that that would be a case against it, I already gave that often this option would not be taken, nor should it be, but sometimes, it might be.

panacea, you could not be MORE wrong if you tried with this statement:
The point is our democracy is no joke and you have no right to propose any changes, especially abrogation of rights.
We al have this right and it is how our country is designed to operate, this was recognized in the constitution when the manner of amending the constitution was included!

Answer 1

Trial by a jury of your peers is still the best justice system in the world, and we should definitely keep it. Any system of laws is really just a tool. It's a means to an end, and that end is Justice. Now I think everyone would agree that Justice is an Ideal... it's a perfect concept, in theory. But being humans, we are incapible of creating anything perfectly. Therefore, the tool we have created as the means to reach that perfect ideal of Justice will, by necessity, be flawed. So, our legal system will never be perfect, and consequently injustices will always come out of it from time to time. But over the many years since it's inception, we continue to fine tune our legal system, with new legislation, with the appealate court process, with new amendements to the constitution, etc. The law is constantly changing because, like technology, morality, and every other aspect of human culture, the law is a work in progress. It will never be perfect, because we are never perfect. But the trial system the best system humanity has ever devised to pursue the ideal of Justice.

But the trial by jury is the last line of defense between the people of our great nation remaining free, and the people of our once-great nation falling into a facist state. It's that right to a trial by a jury of our peers that protects us from unjust laws, from the power which we vote to hand over to our elected public servants corrupting them and allowing them to turn us into the servants, instead. The jury of your peers is what stands between the people and tyranny.

People in this country (unlike many others) are still innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. That "reasonable doubt" standard is very high. We aren't innocent until it appears we're "probably" guilty, or even "more likely than not guilty." That jury has to be pretty damn sure we're guilty, and they have to agree on it. Sometimes in criminal trials someone's very life is on the line. If it's your life, you have the right to cross-examine witness brought against you. You have the right to question evidence brought against you. You have the right to bring witnesses on your behalf, and to bring evidence of your innocence. In other words, you have the right to plead your case and to try to convince that jury that you didn't do it.

Never, ever, let anyone make you believe for a second that this great Republic of ours could pursue our ideal of Justice without the trial system.

Answer 2

Without the right to trial, there is no basis for the authority of the court. There can be no justice.

Just in case you are of the attitude to shrug and say, so what, understand that most of the US population is, ummm, armed.

Take away justice and no one will cooperate with police or courts or the government in general.

You could send in the army. But, not only would they take our side in such a situation, we outnumber you by many millions of people. We have a long history of taking people who arrogantly presume as you do and getting a rope and......well you get the picture.

The point is our democracy is no joke and you have no right to propose any changes, especially abrogation of rights. That situation is backed up with force. That was done on purpose by the founding fathers, specifically to prevent people like you from doing stuff like this.

It's a good system.

Answer 3

It opens up huge possibilities for abuse.

I know you didn't want examples, but to use your own argument about advances in technology, wouldn't you think it would be easy to alter a video surveillance tape?

And who decides who's guilty? Who decides "absolute proof of guilt"?

I'm going to stick with the founding fathers' idea of a jury trial. It ain't perfect, but it's better than totalitarianism.

Answer 4

Most criminal cases are plea bargained. We already skip trials when there is clear evidence the suspect is guilty.

But, it appears the Bush administration shares your view that courts are an unnecessary nuisance that can be bypassed when they interfere with their goals.

I strongly disagree with your idea.

Answer 5

Yes, we should have trials. The problem with our system is not trials but appeals. There should be no right of appeal. Appeals should only be granted if there is evidence of malpractice. Sentences should be carried out immediately.

Answer 6

True, such a waste of trial time and taxpayers money. Then let a legal slip up, not technology, to free someone.

Answer 7

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial.However, sometimes defense attorneys may advise someone to plea a case out due to economics.It is cheaper to plea than it is to go to trial.

Answer 8

That's a slippery slope which gives the government far to much power.

Answer 9

well there could be a setup and an innocent person could be condemded for no reason whatsoever
and then there's fake evidence and bribery... hey we're only human.

Answer 10

I AGREE WITH YOU.... WITH DNA AND TECHNOLOGY THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE HAVE THE EXPENSE OF THESE PEOPLE'S TRIALS TO PAY FOR.