>From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Fw: [Seebergers] Stella Award Candidates
>Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:43:04 +0200
>
>At 10:04 15-07-2002 +1000, Russel Chapman wrote:
>
>>I can understand that giving up trial by jury would be a difficult thing
>>for Americans
>
>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?
>
>
>Jeroen
>
Americans have a right to trial by a jury of their peers because that
prevents the person(s) responsible for appointing the judges from being able
to tell their appointees how each of the cases should be decided.
As it stands now, judges can still have a great influence on the outcome of
a trial. However, a jury can still trump the will of a judge. Example:
there is a new spin-off of Law and Order called... um... ok, I don't
remember what it's called, but it features footage of actual cases,
including the behind-the-scenes legal wrangling between the two lawyers and
the judge concerning what evidence is admissable and how testimony can be
presented. In the most recent episode, the judge clearly didn't like the
prosecutor and did everything he could to keep the prosecutor from being
able to make a good case. The judge even banned police witnesses for the
prosecution from saying that the defendant pointed a gun at them. The
police could testify that the defendant *had* a gun in his hand, but
couldn't say where it was pointed. The judge clearly wanted to get a "not
guilty" verdict from the jury, at least in my opinion. If the judge was
responsible for the verdict, this one would have been "not guilty," and a
man who murdered his girlfriend because she dumped him would have gone free.
Instead, the jury found him guilty, and because he used a handgun in the
crime and because he had prior convictions which mandated a longer sentence,
he was sentenced to... (I should have gotten more sleep last night...)
either 40 years to life, or 70 years to life, I don't remember which.
(By the way, I think the judge wanted a "not guilty" verdict to teach a
lesson to the police forensics people who failed to perform some important
tests and failed to fully document some of the tests they *did* perform).
Reggie Bautista
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
