4 ms·

I'm now thankful my country doesn't have jury as a part of legal system, so this circumstancial evidence doesn't turn into plausibility lottery. Non-zero chance

I'm now thankful my country doesn't have jury as a part of legal system, so this circumstancial evidence doesn't turn into plausibility lottery. Non-zero chances my unlucky location and something I searched for in past $number of years [gives me trouble] isn't something in my opinion acceptable. E: I accidentally missed a clause of my sentence

function_seven 6y ago
As far as I know, you can request a trial without jury (decided by judge) in the U.S. Many defendants opt for this because they know they can't trust laypeople to see past sensational details and rule on the concrete facts and law. (Any lawyers know if there's a jurisdiction or circumstance that demands a jury?)
emodendroket 6y ago
Judges are just as susceptible to biases as everyone else and are in some cases probably less charitable.
- int_19h 6y ago
  Judges are better trained to know when their biases are, in fact, biases, and to set them aside as best as they can. Not all do that to the best of their ability, and there's residual bias even with those that do. But, statistically speaking, if you're facing charges in US, and you're innocent, it's better to go with a judge than with a jury. And conversely, if you actually did it, you have better chances convincing the jury that you didn't, or that you deserve a more lenient sentence.
  - emodendroket 6y ago
    https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=lr https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&cont... Here's an article I found on the topic and it suggests what I thought -- that judges are more likely to find people guilty than juries. Whether you think that means that judges are too close to prosecutors and police or juries are letting guilty people walk is a matter of interpretation, I guess. But to the concerns of the parent poster, juries have a higher, not lower, standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt."

function_seven 6y ago

As far as I know, you can request a trial without jury (decided by judge) in the U.S. Many defendants opt for this because they know they can't trust laypeople to see past sensational details and rule on the concrete facts and law. (Any lawyers know if there's a jurisdiction or circumstance that demands a jury?)

emodendroket 6y ago

Judges are just as susceptible to biases as everyone else and are in some cases probably less charitable.

int_19h 6y ago
Judges are better trained to know when their biases are, in fact, biases, and to set them aside as best as they can. Not all do that to the best of their ability, and there's residual bias even with those that do. But, statistically speaking, if you're facing charges in US, and you're innocent, it's better to go with a judge than with a jury. And conversely, if you actually did it, you have better chances convincing the jury that you didn't, or that you deserve a more lenient sentence.
- emodendroket 6y ago
  https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&context=lr https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1261&cont... Here's an article I found on the topic and it suggests what I thought -- that judges are more likely to find people guilty than juries. Whether you think that means that judges are too close to prosecutors and police or juries are letting guilty people walk is a matter of interpretation, I guess. But to the concerns of the parent poster, juries have a higher, not lower, standard for "beyond a reasonable doubt."