3 ms·
In the United States we have an adversarial system of justice. That means the prosecution gets to present their evidence and arguments, and the defense gets to
by patmorgan23 3y ago
In the United States we have an adversarial system of justice. That means the prosecution gets to present their evidence and arguments, and the defense gets to respond and counter.
The defense will have ample opportunity to cross examine and present rebuttal whiteness.
And just because a witness is presented doesn't mean the fact finder (judge or jury) will find them credible.
- hackernewds 3y agoWhat is the alternate form of justice, if not adversarial?
- hotnfresh 3y agoAnother big one is the inquisitorial system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system
- stock_toaster 3y agoNobody ever expects this one.
- fransje26 3y agoGuilty until proven innocent VS. Innocent until proven guilty..
- hackernewds 3y agoYou could definitely argue the jury are humans are public opinions are easily swayed by emotion
- Woshiwuja 3y agowhy does the US still use common people during jury is beyond me tho
- specialist 3y agoPerhaps we need more more specialized courts. My local jurisdiction has separate tracks for both vets and addicts. Because handling those cases in the "normal" court is inefficient and unproductive. (eg Most addicts need treatment, not jail time. Vets specific care, not jail time.) IIRC, there's a separate bankruptcy court. Sounds smart. I don't expect laypersons to understand finance and such. Methinks we need separate courts for both intellectual property and healthcare. Where the "jury of one's peers" is composed of actual domain expert peers.
- Woshiwuja 3y agoIs the jury decision final or can the judge ignore it? For example, why is the jury even involved in a murder trial?
- specialist 3y agoTo adjudicate.