> >But the way the ICC is set up, they would not recieve a trial by their
> >peers. Without that we do not beleive that IUPG works.
>
> Then you really need to study how things are done in other countries. I'll
> use The Netherlands as an example: we don't have trial by jury here, but
> people are still considered innocent until proven guilty. In every
> civilised country in the world, people are considered innocent until
proven
> guilty -- and I bet that most of those countries don't have trial by jury.
>
> The difference is that over here we leave decisions about
guilty/not-guilty
> to people who have actually been trained to do this (the judges), not to a
> small group of people who usually have never even seen the inside of a Law
> School, let alone graduated from one.
>
> Really, I don't understand why anyone would want to leave such decisions
to
> a bunch of untrained amateurs. After all, when you're feeling sick, who
> would you turn to for the diagnosis: a trained professional (a physician)
> or a small group of "peers" who haven't had extensive medical training?
Indeed. I have read some criticism that trial by jury is not that it's all
cracked up to be. For instance, there was once court case where the baliff
happened to cough before delivering a guilty verdict to the judge, who
interpreted his statement as "not guilty". There was a lengthy, costly
tangle in the legal system before the mistake could be righted.
It has been said that there is a certain dramatic allure to the whole secret
process of sending the jury off to deliberate before unveiling with a
flourish what they agreed on, without any consderation given to how they
arrived at this conclusion. But it might also be said that it would be too
costly to train large numbers of people in the minutae of the law.
-J
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
