3 ms·
They will still go to trial, but they know they will not be able to get a jury to side with them. Thus a judge deciding the outcome is less risky, and there's a
by tadfisher 2y ago
They will still go to trial, but they know they will not be able to get a jury to side with them. Thus a judge deciding the outcome is less risky, and there's a quirk in the court procedures that says "if there are no monetary damages, then you can't have a jury trial". So I would call this a hack.
- paulddraper 2y agoThat's not exactly true. A crime can always be tried, regardless of monetary damages.
- tadfisher 2y agoNowhere did I say that isn't the case. A crime cannot always be tried _via jury_, though.
- moi2388 2y agoWhich in most cases would be a good thing since regular people don’t understand the law nor technical details whatsoever. Only in the USA with your literally corrupt judges that would be a problem.
- paulddraper 2y agoBecause it's irrelevant. The jury decides guilt or innocence, and then the judge issues the sentence. No need for step 1.
- tadfisher 2y agoIn this case, the jury would also decide damages, including punitive damages above and beyond that requested by the prosecution.