2007-03-29 05:45:44 · 11 answers · asked by bigma 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Abolished in favor of what?
I don't think it should be abolished, it's not perfect - but it beats any alternative I can think of.
2007-03-29 05:55:02 · answer #1 · answered by pepper 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The American Jury System
2016-10-14 01:26:59 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, aside from the fact that by having a jury of your peers, ordinary people, they are reflecting the values, rationality, and common sense of an average person. If you have a professional jury you eliminate this. You also increase the chance of government corruption by a system that is used by authorities to punish political opponents, lets the guilty go free, and erodes the trust in the government.
To quote my source: "As a juror you have the right to serve and strike down laws you see as wrong regardless of the law or what the Judge instructs. All you have to do is say no to conviction in deliberations. As a member of a Grand Jury you are entitled to investigate anything you see fit to investigate rather than simply obeying/submitting to the District Attorneys agenda."
2007-03-29 06:04:25 · answer #3 · answered by j 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's another one the Frames got right in the Constitution.
The jury system exists as a safety valve, not allowing someone to be convicted unless the prosecution can prove its case to ordinary people. If we got rid of it, then it is solely in the hands of a judge, and that leads to a greater risk of abuse of power.
2007-03-29 05:56:06 · answer #4 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, trial by jury is a useless relic deriving from the common law of England, just like the writ of habeus corpus. It's now a proven scientific fact that tolerance to hot coals is a more reliable indicator of guilt, or the worthiness of a plaintiff's civil case. If the plaintiff or defendant chooses, they could always skip the trial by ordeal and have the facts determined by the judge. Judges are often politically appointed, or elected because they have a common Irish name, so it is a certainty that justice will be served.
2007-03-29 05:50:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The jury system is the worse system... besides all the others.
I didn't say that, I think Franklin or one of those guys did. But no, I think you get a pretty fair shake at justice with this system.
2007-03-29 05:48:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It shouldn't because it is a major check on government and tyranny.
Practically speaking it won't be abolished, because you would have to amend the Constitution to do eliminate it and even then, its a part of the common law and the states' statutory schema, so you would also have to pass a federal prohibition against juries. Just ain't gonna happen.
And, shame on your for even proposing the concept even hypothetically!
2007-03-29 05:50:42 · answer #7 · answered by William E 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, it works fairly well..
The contingency fee system for lawyers in lawsuits
should be abolished...
2007-03-29 05:54:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think there should be professional jurors for high profile cases. At the local level, you get a fair shake.
2007-03-29 05:51:11 · answer #9 · answered by Matt 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Yes. Look at the OJ case.
2007-03-29 05:48:16 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋