3 ms·
What you are referring to is an inquisitorial court system, as opposed to an adversarial court system. You might have known that already, but no one in this thr
by openasocket 8y ago
What you are referring to is an inquisitorial court system, as opposed to an adversarial court system. You might have known that already, but no one in this thread as mentioned those terms so I thought I'd throw them out there. There are pros and cons to both approaches. I'd caution you from basing your opinion on that court system from that case, since it seems the defendant openly admitted to committing the crime. I'd compare what happened there to what would happen in a criminal trial where the defense pleads guilty.
Seeing as how you don't like the idea of jury trials, I'm curious what your opinion is on lay judges.
- kstenerud 8y agoI would assume that the lay judges are there to keep the professional judge's feet on the ground. Their opinions are non-binding, but would in theory have at least some influence, and provide a reality check with what the greater population thinks. How that actually works out in practice, I don't know. A study would be useful.