Quote:
|
Originally Posted by freddie
That's a part of the bigger issue here. The jury duty they have in America is WRONG. No criminal or civil trial from the States would ever hold any legal value in Europe or anywhere else. You just can't have 12 random laymans hearing a trial full of legal expressions and doctrines, then have them reach a verdict on a case without any legal expereiance from the past. That's how murderers get aquitted and innocent people executed. That's also the biggest reason for the institute of punitive danages in civil procedings and ridiculous compensations a sympathetic jury often gives to individuals sueing big corporations. Without any legal merit.
We have jurors as well. 2 of them (or 4 in difficult cases) that preside beside the judge. basic difference though is that they are ALL legal experts - they need to pass the bar exam and have at least 10 years of experiance in law. See the difference? Why should there be any HINT of an unfair trial when a man's life is at stake? Or when there's a possibility a murderer could go free?
|
I agree, the way you describe in Europe is better. But it's in the US Constitution that suspected criminals will be tried by a jury "of their peers". So an amendment would have to be made and passed, which isn't easy.