There would be a courtroom with lawyers , prosecuters and a judge and witnesses , however the jurors are the American people. I think this is the best way to insure Fairness and justice.
2007-11-11 11:22:24 · 12 answers · asked by ForeverFREE 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I'm sorry, but I don't think we should entrust our criminal justice system to a process similar to that used on American Idol. How an online vote is either fair (because it assumes that everyone has internet access, which is untrue, and would end up cutting mostly poor folks completely out of the process) or just (mob rule, anyone?) is beyond me.
2007-11-11 16:46:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Imagine for an instant if you can that the justice system is not fair - that innocent people are convicted wrongly every day simply because of plea bargains those accused are advised to accept when the evidence seems to be against them, or because the atty failed to grill witnesses and cops adequately over evidence, or even more likely, the accused is mentally retarded or afflicted with something like fetal alcohol syndrome and as a result is unable to appreciate or direct his defense and the legal aid atty doesn't pick up on it in time or ever? Now imagine you or your offspring or someone you admire is the accused. Do you really want the guy next to you at MacDonald's passing anything stronger than wind over the accused's guilt or innocence?
2007-11-11 11:38:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What a horrific notion! That is, in all probability, the worst idea I've heard in years.
Which American people? All or just some?
How do the attorneys select them?
How can you ensure their presence on a daily basis and make certain they stay for the duration?
What happens when their server boots them off-line?
What happens when their server goes down?
What happens if they get sick or need to excuse themselves for a family emergency or whatever?
How does the jury speak to one another when it's time to discuss the guilt or innocence of the accused?
How does the jury ask for items to be given them that they need to re-read or go over again?
How does one get a "feel" for the accused if they are not present?
The list of things that are against this way of conducting a trial are so problematical that there can be no fairness or justice!
2007-11-11 11:43:35 · answer #3 · answered by Chris B 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you could make sure that only one vote per person that would be great but there is no way to do this at this time. Hackers are everywhere and do about everything. If you have been convicted of a crime you can not sit on a jury but on line how are they going to know. That is the flaw.
2007-11-13 08:32:43 · answer #4 · answered by Coop 366 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that is a horrible idea. Americans would decide guilt or innocence without arriving at a concensus or even being required to listen to the evidence. It should be obvious that Americans decisions are easily swayed by emotion, and a person's guilt should be measured against the facts, not opinions.
2007-11-11 11:27:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
the 1st reason has to do with the protection of a balloting device and how unquestionably it must be hacked into and have the outcomes replaced. yet another excuse has to do with the actuality that a cyber web balloting device does not circulate away a papertrail interior the form that a recount grew to become into necessary. there grew to become right into a cutting-edge documentary in this subject remember and a working laptop or workstation professional confirmed how common it grew to become into to hack right into a software and regulate the outcomes. yet another difficulty is a legal difficulty. as an occasion, who might have get right of entry to to the utility? if the utility have been propritary then in basic terms the manafacturer of the utility might have the skill to get right of entry to the innovations that grew to become into saved,a income they might in the event that they had to regulate those votes. as an occasion, permit's say that Diebold made the utility (comparable co that makes balloting mchines), that's based in Ohio, a tradtionally Republican state, is administered by potential of somebody who has made extensive contributions to the Republican occasion, and is a key member of the Ohio Republican occasion (all of that's authentic) ought to theoretically regulate the ends up in want of the Republican occasion. not that he might, yet you may locate how that should forged doubt over the balloting technique.
2016-10-02 00:35:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, right. And what happens when one defendant comes across as a scumbag--but is innocent? Or you get a personable, friendly seriel killer who withs your popularity contest?
The judicial process is about determining guild or innocence--it's not American Idol, it is not a popularity contest, and it's certainly not a reality show--which is the disgusting parody of justice your idea would reduce it to.
2007-11-11 11:30:02 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because a Mormon would never go to jail. A popularity contest is not what proves a person is guilty or innocent.
2007-11-15 10:53:20 · answer #8 · answered by BeArPaW_4709 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most americans dont have the morality needed for that job. If not the morality, they dont have the sense...They'll base the outcome of the individual based on their opinion not the facts.
2007-11-11 13:46:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Judging by what we've accomplished with our vote so far, I think it would be the end of justice in America.
2007-11-11 12:06:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋