How about no more juries?

I was wondering what people think about changing the fundamental nature of trials? Specifically, how do you all think about getting rid of juries, jury selection, and whatnot?

Personally, I find juries and the maintenance of jurors throughout a trial to be a very slow, cumbersome process. Trial by RA referendum would speed up the process dramatically, but of course, bias would be, theoretically, more relevant in trials. However, there is definitely no guarantee that a bias-free jury would be chosen in a given trial under our current system. Personally, I think the trade-off may just be worth it.

Of course, there would still be certain restrictions placed on the trial proper. For example, the general RA would still not be allowed to participate in the trial thread itself, although commentary would be allowed elsewhere.
 
Changes wee adopted during my tenure as Prime Minister that have not been tested, and until they have been tested, it is premature to say that juries should be abolished. Those changes allow the court to access current information on who is eligible for jury service, and inposed time limits and standards on criminal trials so as to require the two sides to have their cases ready before the jury is selected, and so that the amount of time it would take to present the evidence to the jury would be measured in a few days, and not a few months. Juries are a check and balance to the judiciary and the prosecutors.

Trial by referendum in the regional assembly would turn every trial into a popularity contest, with little or any regard for the facts. And it would make impossible any means for appeal of a trial judgment because of the "roman circus" that a trial by the RA would present.

Not only one bad idea (not having juries) but two bad ideas (trial in the regional assembly).
 
Yeah, I'm going to have to say that a ban on bills of attainder, which I'm fairly certain exists, exists with good reason.
 
Back
Top