--- Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At Stardate 20030626.0014, Jan Coffey wrote:
>
> > > That has nothing to do with the concept of trial by jury. The jury
> system
> > > doesn't have any more safeguards against an innocent man being
> convicted
> > > than our system has.
> >
> >Your system has profesional judges who make decisions that is to much
> power,
>
> A trained professional is far more likely to make an informed decision than
>
> the untrained Joe Average. Unlike Joe Average, the professional knows what
> he's talking about, so it's much safer to trust *him* with such power than
> to trust Joe Average with that power.
>
That is rediculous. Someone in a position of power can abuse it. Average Joe
isn't going to continue to recieve that power. Besides 1 person on a jurry
trying to abuse the power is nothing. All 12 would have to go along with the
same abuse of the power. That is 12 times less likely.
The dicisions do not require a degree in law. It has to do with the fuzzy
parts who do you believe, which version of the circomstances can be prooved?
Does htat versio prove that the chrime was commited by this individual etc.
There was another post on this wich did a much better job of explaining.
> >we in the US do not trust our governemnt that much.
>
> You're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say you don't trust the
> government (in this case, a member of the Judicial branch), but on the
> other hand you've stated that the three branches (Legislative, Executive
> and Judicial) keep each other in check and prevent each other from abusing
> their power.
No, we do not trust -GOVERNMENTS- in general, power corupts. Don't mix
consepts.
>
> > > >While this may not allways work in the US, it is still IMNSHAO :) much
> > > >less likely than in ~many~ other countries,
> > >
> > > Can you provide evidence for this? How is, say, a Dutch court more
> likely
> > > to convict an innocent man than a US trial-by-jury court?
> >
> >Come on. it's obvious. -A- judge can be in on it, paid off, lean one way
> >or another due to political perswation, religion, personal beliefs.
>
> All this also applies to any member of a jury. A jury decision must be
> unanimous; if eleven members believe the defendant is guilty, and the
> twelth member is being paid to vote "not guilty"... well, you figure it
> out.
Yes. but it is better that 10 guilty go free than 1 inocent be punished.
> >A Jury picked and agreed to by the prosicution and defence as much less
> >likelyhood of being swayed do to anythign but the evidence, and -proof- of
>
> >guilt beond a reasonable doubt. Further more they have to all agree.
> >
> >Besides, how would you support this with a study?
>
> Public outcry about an innocent man being convicted is just as loud here as
> it is in the US. So, all you have to do is tally how many of those cases
> have been reported.
How would you know when someone is convicted but is not inocent and their is
no public outcry?
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
[Sponsored by:]
_____________________________________________________________________________
The newest lyrics on the Net!
http://lyrics.astraweb.com
Click NOW!
