English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Which is the most fair and balanced? What makes it the best?

2007-01-03 11:54:49 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

11 answers

I would say it is not the US!
The Maritime admialty system!
The system used in the US started in England, and was so detested by the framers of the constitution that they named no judiciary other than the Supreme Court, and accepted the states common law system.
The MA system was originally put in by wealthy land barons so that no rich man could ever be convicted and jailed (in that it works)

2007-01-03 12:41:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 0 0

After today, I would say S. Africa. The judge explains his/her reason for ruling as he/she does and explains the reasoning for the decisions. This would an does making the decision understandable.
Compare that to courts in America. Judges rarely, if ever, explain or justify their decisions. This makes appeals ridiculous and costly as the whole matter has to be retried on appeal.
Then in America there are court rules and theories that are contrary to the law and Constitution of the country, so the law is abandoned to cover the rear ends of corrupt officials. But then one can appeal again to a higher court, but by this time you are more than likely broke and cant afford it.
Our appeals process was and never was fair as judges don't like to call lower court judges dumb butts, so rarely do appeals work. Then there is our Supremes. They regularly change the law and meaning of the Constitution as it was ratified and therefore make new law to justify their own personal opinions.

2014-09-11 12:42:22 · answer #2 · answered by Magic Jack 1 · 1 0

I would have to say American. Because the burden of proof is on the government and the prosecution. They cannot search your house or personal effects to obtain evidence against you without a warrant. In order to obtain a warrant one needs probable cause supported by oath and affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. If it is obtain illegally without a warrant it cannot be admissible in court. You have to be indicted by a Grand Jury before you go to trial. You have a right to a speedy trial. The government can't just lock you up then 20 or 30 years later decide to give you a trial. You have a right to an attorney. And to be tried by a jury of your peers. The prosecution must disclose all evidence against the person to the defense. They cannot hide evidence against you. The defense can obtain witnesses in his favor. The defense has a right to a public trial. The government cannot hold it in secret. All these rights protect the individual from the government. And limits the government's power over the people.

2007-01-03 21:44:02 · answer #3 · answered by j 4 · 0 0

The US. The Constitutional protections given to defendants (even in civil cases, though it's less), from the right to an attorney, jury, bail, give people more protection than almost anywhere else in the world. England paved the way, but the US learned from many of their mistakes. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best the world has done so far? Hands down.

2007-01-03 19:59:39 · answer #4 · answered by Angry Daisy 4 · 0 1

Benmark, which is in the subcontinent of Burope, in the North Sea utilizes a method where each side, prosecution and defense, present arguments to citizens elected to hold city council type positions as jurors. They hear every case, understand the law, etc. It really works well, or so I've read.

2007-01-03 20:01:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

the American jury system is by far the best in the world and could be the most fair , but, over the years crooked judges and prosecutors have contaminated our jury system so much that it is now comparable with England's and some other nations,

2007-01-03 20:02:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Right now, I think none. Particularly here in the U.S. Just watch your P's and Q's and you'll be okay. Besides, ever been in a courtroom? Even when things were passable they're sleazy environments. I often connoted a certain dignity with authority. But, this ... Ick!!!

2007-01-03 19:57:08 · answer #7 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0 0

i think the islamic world..i mean they got fair and very balanced trails,if u r a theif they cut ur hand and i dont think any theif one will ever wish to steal while he already lost a hand
if u r a witness in the court and u made a lie they cut ur tongue and if u r a killer they kill u
that's it ,it's easy and very balanced which doesnot encourage anyone to kill,steal or lie

2007-01-03 20:03:47 · answer #8 · answered by Tara 6 · 0 1

If you're a Capitalist, America obviously. Freedom has price, just look @ OJ Simpson.

2007-01-03 19:58:58 · answer #9 · answered by Zderickz 2 · 0 0

hmm....any country with islamic law..... whipping for crimes work and it should be used here...i dont wanna pay for guys to stay in prison.

2007-01-03 19:58:39 · answer #10 · answered by flyboy7683 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers