Common Law is horrendously flawed

The Biggest problem i see with it is that it is not about right and wrong or truth and facts, It's about 2 sides debating one another and the better side winning on the day.

There are a lot of flaw in the judicial systems. Jury by peers for example is a double edged sword. It's good because you're not being tried by a bunch of government cronies ala iran or something like that, but many juries are composed of people with no training or education. Your life is in their hands and they may not even understand the evidence being presented.

There are a lot of flaw in the judicial systems. Jury by peers for example is a double edged sword. It's good because you're not being tried by a bunch of government cronies ala iran or something like that, but many juries are composed of people with no training or education. Your life is in their hands and they may not even understand the evidence being presented.

sonicare

There are a lot of flaw in the judicial systems. Jury by peers for example is a double edged sword. It's good because you're not being tried by a bunch of government cronies ala iran or something like that, but many juries are composed of people with no training or education. Your life is in their hands and they may not even understand the evidence being presented.

If I am worried about juries being smart enough to interpret complex data?sonicare

I was sitting bored out of my mind in a lecture in my law class when i came to the realization that our law system is beyond fuc**ed up. Common law pits the defense against the prosecution to 'enable justice.' It has no intention of actually finding truth and the Crown (prosecution in commonwealth) are so hellbent on winning that they dont care what the truth is and if they could be wrong. The entire system depends on the skill of the prosecution and the defense. Why dont these entities work together and have an investigation instead of a trial? An accused could be completely innocent and have a sh!t lawyer and go to jail for life..is that really fair for the person?BossPerson

I take it,you like me are from the UK

I was sitting bored out of my mind in a lecture in my law class when i came to the realization that our law system is beyond fuc**ed up. Common law pits the defense against the prosecution to 'enable justice.' It has no intention of actually finding truth and the Crown (prosecution in commonwealth) are so hellbent on winning that they dont care what the truth is and if they could be wrong. The entire system depends on the skill of the prosecution and the defense. Why dont these entities work together and have an investigation instead of a trial? An accused could be completely innocent and have a sh!t lawyer and go to jail for life..is that really fair for the person?BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]I was sitting bored out of my mind in a lecture in my law class when i came to the realization that our law system is beyond fuc**ed up. Common law pits the defense against the prosecution to 'enable justice.' It has no intention of actually finding truth and the Crown (prosecution in commonwealth) are so hellbent on winning that they dont care what the truth is and if they could be wrong. The entire system depends on the skill of the prosecution and the defense. Why dont these entities work together and have an investigation instead of a trial? An accused could be completely innocent and have a sh!t lawyer and go to jail for life..is that really fair for the person?sexyweapons

I take it,you like me are from the UK

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]I was sitting bored out of my mind in a lecture in my law class when i came to the realization that our law system is beyond fuc**ed up. Common law pits the defense against the prosecution to 'enable justice.' It has no intention of actually finding truth and the Crown (prosecution in commonwealth) are so hellbent on winning that they dont care what the truth is and if they could be wrong. The entire system depends on the skill of the prosecution and the defense. Why dont these entities work together and have an investigation instead of a trial? An accused could be completely innocent and have a sh!t lawyer and go to jail for life..is that really fair for the person?sexyweapons

I take it,you like me are from the UK

The Biggest problem i see with it is that it is not about right and wrong or truth and facts, It's about 2 sides debating one another and the better side winning on the day.

mattisgod01

^ This. It's pretty much like a political debate where each sides tries to intentionally mislead the jury, and the population in general seems far more likely to be swayed by an emotional appeal rather than cold hard fact.

What system would you put in its place?Jandurin

2. A judge, who also acts as a detective (so he is with the ministry of justice rather than with the police) would judge the evidence and also conduct searches and evidence gathering himselfBossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]2. A judge, who also acts as a detective (so he is with the ministry of justice rather than with the police) would judge the evidence and also conduct searches and evidence gathering himselfJandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]2. A judge, who also acts as a detective (so he is with the ministry of justice rather than with the police) would judge the evidence and also conduct searches and evidence gathering himselfBossPerson

As long as there are people willing to take bribes,changing the system wont improve anything.

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]I was sitting bored out of my mind in a lecture in my law class when i came to the realization that our law system is beyond fuc**ed up. Common law pits the defense against the prosecution to 'enable justice.' It has no intention of actually finding truth and the Crown (prosecution in commonwealth) are so hellbent on winning that they dont care what the truth is and if they could be wrong. The entire system depends on the skill of the prosecution and the defense. Why dont these entities work together and have an investigation instead of a trial? An accused could be completely innocent and have a sh!t lawyer and go to jail for life..is that really fair for the person?junglist101

I take it,you like me are from the UK

I love the US justice system its just so so.......democratic!

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]2. A judge, who also acts as a detective (so he is with the ministry of justice rather than with the police) would judge the evidence and also conduct searches and evidence gathering himselfJandurin

I am in favour of this regardless of the possible consequences.

I AM THE LAW!

Indeed. That's why I much prefer Civil law, where every one works together to find the common truth.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]If I am worried about juries being smart enough to interpret complex data?Jandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="sonicare"]If I am worried about juries being smart enough to interpret complex data?sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] Yep.Jandurin

I was sitting bored out of my mind in a lecture in my law class when i came to the realization that our law system is beyond fuc**ed up. Common law pits the defense against the prosecution to 'enable justice.' It has no intention of actually finding truth and the Crown (prosecution in commonwealth) are so hellbent on winning that they dont care what the truth is and if they could be wrong. The entire system depends on the skill of the prosecution and the defense. Why dont these entities work together and have an investigation instead of a trial? An accused could be completely innocent and have a sh!t lawyer and go to jail for life..is that really fair for the person?BossPerson

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] LOL Please link to me cases where a doctor's insurance didn't cover malpractice or an engineer had to go before a jury of uneducated sots due to negligence.Shadowhawk000

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]I was sitting bored out of my mind in a lecture in my law class when i came to the realization that our law system is beyond fuc**ed up. Common law pits the defense against the prosecution to 'enable justice.' It has no intention of actually finding truth and the Crown (prosecution in commonwealth) are so hellbent on winning that they dont care what the truth is and if they could be wrong. The entire system depends on the skill of the prosecution and the defense. Why dont these entities work together and have an investigation instead of a trial? An accused could be completely innocent and have a sh!t lawyer and go to jail for life..is that really fair for the person?Franklinstein

[QUOTE="Shadowhawk000"][QUOTE="sonicare"] Any civil lawsuit. And the idea of whether someone has insurance plays no role in determinng guilt.sonicare

Any civil lawsuit.sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]Any civil lawsuit.Jandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="sonicare"]Any civil lawsuit.sonicare

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]I was sitting bored out of my mind in a lecture in my law class when i came to the realization that our law system is beyond fuc**ed up. Common law pits the defense against the prosecution to 'enable justice.' It has no intention of actually finding truth and the Crown (prosecution in commonwealth) are so hellbent on winning that they dont care what the truth is and if they could be wrong. The entire system depends on the skill of the prosecution and the defense. Why dont these entities work together and have an investigation instead of a trial? An accused could be completely innocent and have a sh!t lawyer and go to jail for life..is that really fair for the person?BossPerson

Having served on juries before, and having heard, in the course of that service, things like "if he didn't do it then why did the police arrest him" I can't say I have a terrible amount of faith in the jury system.

Having served on juries before, and having heard, in the course of that service, things like "if he didn't do it then why did the police arrest him" I can't say I have a terrible amount of faith in the jury system.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Having served on juries before, and having heard, in the course of that service, things like "if he didn't do it then why did the police arrest him" I can't say I have a terrible amount of faith in the jury system.

Jandurin

No, it isn't. The question assumes guilt, precisely what the jurors are suppose tonot do.

No, it isn't. The question assumes guilt, precisely what the jurors are suppose tonot do.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, it isn't. The question assumes guilt, precisely what the jurors are suppose tonot do.

Jandurin

Sure it is.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, it isn't. The question assumes guilt, precisely what the jurors are suppose tonot do.

Sure it is.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, it isn't. The question assumes guilt, precisely what the jurors are suppose tonot do.

worlock77

Sure it is.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] Or it could be assuming innocence and asking why the police decided to target this individual. Race/money/political agenda.Franklinstein

Sure it is.

It is not a fair question, nor was it addressed to the defense, but rather one spoken amongst the other jurors and no one else. And I said nothing about what the defense did or did not address. See, you made an assumption. People in general are too quick to assume, which is one of the reasons why the jury system is flawed.

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

Sure it is.

worlock77

It is not a fair question, nor was it addressed to the defense, but rather one spoken amongst the other jurors and no one else. And I said nothing about what the defense did or did not address. See, you made an assumption. People in general are too quick to assume, which is one of the reasons why the jury system is flawed.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"] It's a fair question. The defense should have addressed his client's alibi. Jandurin

It is not a fair question, nor was it addressed to the defense, but rather one spoken amongst the other jurors and no one else. And I said nothing about what the defense did or did not address. See, you made an assumption. People in general are too quick to assume, which is one of the reasons why the jury system is flawed.

It isn't the job of the police to ascertain guilt or innocence.

It isn't the job of the police to ascertain guilt or innocence.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

It isn't the job of the police to ascertain guilt or innocence.

Jandurin

Not relevant. The juror was not assuming guilt because the officer said the person was guilty. The juror was assuming guilt simply because the person was arrested.