Show of HandsShow of Hands

Arkansas123 July 22nd, 2013 4:37pm

If you were accused of a crime that you did not commit, would you prefer to be tried by a jury of six common people or by a panel of three experienced judges?

11 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/22/13 10:25 am

To be fair, the jury is supposed to be the trier of fact. In theory, it is supposed to examine the evidence presented to it while accepting the interpretations of law made by the judge. It is expected to follow the jury instructions.

07/22/13 9:47 am

I think the jury systems is pretty silly. Having people with no legal knowledge or experience interpret the law to decide guilt and innocence is kind of ridiculous.

Blarney Wrightville
07/22/13 10:08 am

That's my concern also is the kickbacks, but 6 laymen are much more likely to be persuaded by a slick-tongued prosecutor too.

kateXcore Dark side of the moon
07/22/13 9:51 am

Definitely the common folk. The judges probably get kickbacks from everyone they throw in jail.

kateXcore Dark side of the moon
07/22/13 4:57 pm

Good point. Guess it's pretty much a lose/lose situation.

Arkansas123 Neoconservative
07/22/13 10:42 am

Hypothetically, a person could be tried by a hybrid panel. Some of its members would be legal professionals, and some of its members would be selected from the general public.