Russel Chapman wrote: > >I can understand that giving up trial by jury > > would be a difficult thing for Americans
J. van Baardwijk wrote: > This is something I do not really understand. > The purpose of a trial is to determine whether > or not you violated the law, and if you did, > to determine the appropriate punishment. Now, > why would someone rather have a bunch of > amateurs decide on whether or not you broke > the law, rather than have it decided by people > who have actually *studied* Law and therefore > know what they are talking about? > The trial by a jury of peers was written into the U.S. constitution as a reaction to what you describe. The problem with an all-proffesional system is that they (did) turn into an old boys club, and the standards get lax and unbalanced. BTW, there are special juries for highly technical cases, involving proffesional jurors, etc., and It's built in to the jury selection process that both the defending lawyers and prosecuting lawyers have to agree that the final jury is competent and unbiased. -- Matt
