Common Law is horrendously flawed

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

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

worlock77

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.

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="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] Then you should have told that to the juror.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.

- No, as plenty of innocent people have been arrested before.

- Once, on a charge that was dropped because there was no real evidence.

- Once, on a charge that was dropped because there was no real evidence.

worlock77

- No, as plenty of innocent people have been arrested before.

worlock77

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

- Once, on a charge that was dropped because there was no real evidence.

Jandurin

Nope, but the good citizen who called in reported a white male, late teens/early 20s, and I happened to be outside in the general area when the police got around to showing up.

[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.

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

the fact of the matter is that most people arrested ARE guilty of the crime they're arrested for

needled24-7

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

the fact of the matter is that most people arrested ARE guilty of the crime they're arrested for

Jandurin

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]

the fact of the matter is that most people arrested ARE guilty of the crime they're arrested for

needled24-7

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] see worlock?Jandurin

i haven't been following this thread, i just made my post then read a few posts before mine

The adverserial system is an aspect of commonlaw- not what commonlaw is. "law class" (lol) better.

The adverserial system is an aspect of commonlaw- not what commonlaw is. "law class" (lol) better.

pie-junior

I question the capacity of my peers at times.

I question the capacity of my peers at times.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I question the capacity of my peers at times.

BossPerson

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I question the capacity of my peers at times.

BossPerson

Generally speaking. People on the street who could receive a notice obligating them to do jury duty.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

I question the capacity of my peers at times.

coolbeans90

Generally speaking. People on the street who could receive a notice obligating them to do jury duty.

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

The adverserial system is an aspect of commonlaw- not what commonlaw is. "law class" (lol) better.

BossPerson

Criminal trials are practically a niche area of law; By definition it can't be a legal system's "main part".

Just to clarify a bit- we're speaking about some very general extraneous-to-law-school class dealing, in all probability, mainly with the differences between english commonlaw, american commonlaw and european civil law, right?pie-junior

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]Just to clarify a bit- we're speaking about some very general extraneous-to-law-school class dealing, in all probability, mainly with the differences between english commonlaw, american commonlaw and european civil law, right?BossPerson

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]What system would you put in its place?BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Jandurin"]What system would you put in its place?Franklinstein

well, i just made that up on the spot, maybe it is bad, but im just saying that we need to reform our court systemsBossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]well, i just made that up on the spot, maybe it is bad, but im just saying that we need to reform our court systemsJandurin

[QUOTE="Franklinstein"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]well I think the civil law system is better for a start, after that....I think trials should be done differently 1. All the possible evidence should be gathered 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 himself 3. And the judge (acting unbiased and fair..hopefully) would be the determiner of facts and the determiner of law)BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="Franklinstein"] A system likes this strongly favors the rich, wealthy, and well-to-do citizens of a state, and strongly disfavors the poor, uneducated masses. The adversarial system has it's flaws, but in my opinion, this method has even more flaws. The problem is that there are just too many people, and therefore too many judges would need to be monitored. As a result, they wouldn't be monitored, and they would become more biased and less fair as time went on. needled24-7

the system we have now is probably the best we're going to get. it has it's flaws, sure, but it's never going to be perfect. when every part works together the way they're supposed to, then the system works.

needled24-7

Stop watching law&order, goddamit.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]well, i just made that up on the spot, maybe it is bad, but im just saying that we need to reform our court systemsBossPerson

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

the system we have now is probably the best we're going to get. it has it's flaws, sure, but it's never going to be perfect. when every part works together the way they're supposed to, then the system works.

pie-junior

Stop watching law&order, goddamit.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="needled24-7"]the system we have now is probably the best we're going to get. it has it's flaws, sure, but it's never going to be perfect. when every part works together the way they're supposed to, then the system works.

needled24-7

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]well, i just made that up on the spot, maybe it is bad, but im just saying that we need to reform our court systemsBossPerson

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

the system we have now is probably the best we're going to get. it has it's flaws, sure, but it's never going to be perfect. when every part works together the way they're supposed to, then the system works.

needled24-7

Stop watching law&order, goddamit.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]but....but...im right?BossPerson

if the jury doesn't know how to interpret evidence, it's up to the defense to explain to them what it means. many people have this picture in their mind that it's going to be like on the CSI TV show, when it's not. If the defense can't do that, then they aren't doing as good a job as they should. and if that happens, the defendant can say they received ineffective counsel (if they're indigent). but when someone can't afford their own attorney and has to have one appointed to them, they're not going to get anyone top tier or anything. that is one of the flaws, but there isn't really a better way of doing it.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

Stop watching law&order, goddamit.

pie-junior

they don't teach us IF it works, they teach us HOW it works. if everything works the way it's supposed to, then the system is usually pretty good.

needled24-7

You go to law school, then?

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

they don't teach us IF it works, they teach us HOW it works. if everything works the way it's supposed to, then the system is usually pretty good.

pie-junior

You go to law school, then?

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

they don't teach us IF it works, they teach us HOW it works. if everything works the way it's supposed to, then the system is usually pretty good.

needled24-7

You go to law school, then?

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

[QUOTE="pie-junior"]

You go to law school, then?

pie-junior

but yes, in my criminal procedure class, we studied supreme court cases such as Katz v United States, California v Greenwood, Terry v Ohio, California v Hodari, and many others

the textbook presented the facts of the cases, the ruling, concurring opinions and dissenting opinions of the SC justices. my professor practiced law out in California so he told us how to brief cases and would help us out with that.

but in my criminal courts class, i don't think we'll be studying cases so much as just the different stages of the system. but my professor practiced on all sides of the court (she's been a judge, defense attorney, and prosecutor) in Philadelphia, and she currently is a magistrate here in Atlanta.

so i trust them with what they say :P

The jury system for criminal law is flawed. Absolutely. However, it's still the best system in current use. It would be hard to design a perfect system that ensures that the innocent go free and the guilty are punished. Juries are composed of people and thus inherently flawed. You're subject to their prejudicies and potential ignorance of the subject. However, I'd prefer a jury of common people than a jury of government appointed lapdogs for obvious reasons.

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

Just a note on this, in professional negligence trials the plaintiff is required to establish the duty of care by bringing in an expert in that field to tell the jury what the standard of care is. After they have provided adequate evidence so that the jury could find that there was a duty that was breached they judge will allow them to do so. If the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proving the standard of care then the case will be dismissed as the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action.

While its not the same as having a jury full of that profession (which runs into other problems such as people refusing to punish others in their profession) the jury is only required to know what the layman knows, and if the parties in the case fail to educate the jury then there is no case. Plus most neligence causes are settled or re ruled in favor of the defendants.

And since I was an engineer before being a lawyer hah, usually neglience comes from things that normal people understand like someone ignoring a warning in a spec, sub par testing, or using crappy parts.

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

they don't teach us IF it works, they teach us HOW it works. if everything works the way it's supposed to, then the system is usually pretty good.

pie-junior

You go to law school, then?