2007-02-15 17:11:05 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
HELL NO! The Jury is the last check in our system. it is the final barrier that can return a verdict despite the facts of the case if they find that the law is unjust. The Jury was written in as the last barrier to government tyranny. If the jury goes, so does our last resort against tyranny.
2007-02-15 17:15:28 · answer #1 · answered by The Big Box 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. It souldn't. But it does need changes. I understand why you are asking this. A lot of the verdicts are unfair. Some people don't even listen to the facts and chose guilty. Those are some reasons why it should be. But, it lets the people decide. If you just let a judge decide, one man decides possibly your entire future. Entire future. As with the jury, it would have to have a group disscusion about it. It does need changes, like having cameras in the room so no one cheats at this. So no, but it does need changes.
2007-02-16 01:19:07 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The jury selection process could use an overhaul, though.
2007-02-16 01:27:44 · answer #3 · answered by Michael E 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The judge already tells the jury how too think, what info they can and can't have. why should it be abolished when the government already controls it? It gives the apperance of fair trial. and that helps dumb americans believe they are free.
2007-02-16 01:16:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Of course not! What would you prefer? Military tribunal for civilians?
2007-02-16 01:14:29 · answer #5 · answered by lizardmama 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No way!! That is sometimes the only way you can be assured of getting justice.
2007-02-16 01:24:18 · answer #6 · answered by ncgirl 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. Why do you ask?
2007-02-16 01:13:47 · answer #7 · answered by Jace 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋