something like a televised court, then the public could pass sentence too. I think that would be a brilliant idea when it comes to murderers and peadophiles
2007-03-11 06:44:17 · 14 answers · asked by looby 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The public does vote. It is called a jury.
Your idea is lame.
How can we ensure the public is not watching some other program and then at the last minute changes channels so they can vote? How can we be sure the public is not up going to the bathroom when a key piece of evidence is given? How can we be sure the public voting is actually adults? How can we be sure the public is not drunk or on drugs as they watch the trial and vote?
When do you want these trials to take place? If during the day time, only those working nights or swings will vote. If at night, is the public willing to miss sleep to watch the trail and vote?
If you are so interested in voting, volunteer for jury duty.
2007-03-11 06:57:47 · answer #1 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I think that's a great idea.
While we're at it we could also use taxpayers' money to have some kind of campaign bus, where the defense and prosecution could hang banners saying "VOTE NOT GUILTY".
Seriously, though. With the state of the UK's premium line numbers at the moment it'd be so unreliable that you may as well just shut down the courts and let people fight crime themselves. What about people who voted 50 times for someone "because they thought he looked nice"? It sounds stupid, but the only reason David Cameron is rated high in the opinion polls is because people vote him just because he looks good.
All in all it wouldn't work. The view of the Government / judiciary in the UK is that they'd rather find 10 guilty people innocent than 1 innocent person guilty and so I think the system we use at the moment (which, to some extent does involve the public as the jury) is fine.
2007-03-11 09:09:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They do. It's called a jury.
If you mean mass mob voting -- that becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. Without the jurors actually deliberating and discussing the evidence, there is no guarantee that the people voting would even be considering the evidence presented in court, and only the evidence presented in court.
Besides, without some guarantee over the number of people voting, there is no way to ensure consistency or fairness. The people with the strongest emotional interests in the issues will vote, and the people who don't care won't bother. Which means the decision will effectively be based purely on emotion, rather than logic or law.
If you want to go that route, we might as well throw away the courts and just go back to lynch mobs. It'll be the same result.
2007-03-11 08:23:21 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, We're too influenced by the media, no matter how immune you may think you are. Especially with murderers and paedophiles, which cause such emotion in the public arena. Best let justice take its course, in the privacy of a court room.
I don't even think they should be televised, except for Judge Judy
2007-03-11 06:53:39 · answer #4 · answered by Christine 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. People are very perverse and many of the people voting would have their own axe to grind and make up their minds on the most spurious of grounds: their own criminal background, their prejudices, the good looks of the defence or prosecuting counsel....the list is endless. There would be no way of ensuring that they listened to all the evidence before voting: they might, for example, just switch on and listen to the evidence of one witness or the speech of one counsel and be swayed by that, not bothering (or not being able) to follow the rest of the case. Look at some of the flippant answers posted on YA and tell me honestly whether or not you'd want them trying your case!
2007-03-11 07:14:18 · answer #5 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You mean like 'The X Factor', or 'I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here'? Oh, yeah, definitely!
And by the way, a peadophile is someone who loves peas! What may I ask is wrong with that?
2007-03-11 06:52:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
When you read some of the drivel on this site it cleary illustrates that some people are incapable of not prejudging going purely on media coverage and ignoring any facts or logic justice is a serious matter not for public entertainment.
2007-03-11 06:58:43 · answer #7 · answered by frankturk50 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The public already vote, it is called a jury, the type of voting you are suggesting would not be a good idea.
2007-03-11 07:09:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not on your life... the public A, dont understand the requirements of evidence and proof, B, they read the sun, and C, they would hang everyone first...and ask questions afterwards, which is not a lot of good to inocent johnny who has just been murdered by public opinion..
leave the law to senior judges... the police merely enfoce the law...the judiciary get paid to interpret it and argue for and against...
its a system which has been in place for over 1000 years... and yes it has its faults... but its the best system of legal jurisprudence we have... in fact, the English system of law is the best in the world... unlike the american system...
2007-03-11 06:51:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, stick to the US Constitution. That's the problem with most politicians today. They throw the United States Constitution, and our rights, into the trash. I wonder why they even bother to swear to uphold and defend the Constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. McCain, Guilianni, Clinton, Obama - what's the difference?
http://www.freedomtofascism.com
http://www.ronpaulexplore.com
2007-03-11 06:48:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋