Originally posted by no1marauderand the answer was, NEITHER OF THEM, and HOW ABOUT THIS INSTEAD? .... comprende? ...
The topic is which system is preferable: A Lay Jury or a panel of jurists (please read thread title). You have now made 14 posts in this thread and not a single one has addressed that subject. So stop SPAMMING!
Originally posted by no1marauderso, we need no1m to tell us our options? ....
16 posts now without addressing the subject of the thread; "neither of them" in not an option (again read the title of the thread).
or to start off-topic subthreads that complain about off-topic posts because he doesn't understand why the previous posts were on-topic ...
Originally posted by no1marauderno1m, the new forum poh-lice-man .... been here all of one month and wants to tell the rest of us how to post ...
Lucifershammer started the thread and wrote the title.
17 posts now, Spammer.
if you don't want conflicting viewpoints (or don't want to be confused) why don't you stick to CC's private forum? ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotConflicting viewpoints on the topic of this thread are fine. 18 off-topic posts by you are ridiculous.
no1m, the new forum poh-lice-man .... been here all of one month and wants to tell the rest of us how to post ...
if you don't want conflicting viewpoints (or don't want to be confused) why don't you stick to CC's private forum? ...
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, falling for zeeblebot's bait (which was a humorous interjection IMO) is also silly, as you know exactly how these exchanges between you & him always turn out. Carry on with the debate...
Conflicting viewpoints on the topic of this thread are fine. 18 off-topic posts by you are ridiculous.
Originally posted by zeeblebotWhile I can appreciate the levity zeeble, your option is not an option at all. Perhaps you could propose a better alternative since you seem to disapprove of lay jurists and professional jurists.
so, BdN and lucifershammer, what did you think of my idea ... i.e., "neither" ...
I say we stick with amateurs.
Originally posted by wibIf we want criminals to be judged by their peers why dont we employ convicted felons as jurors?
While I can appreciate the levity zeeble, your option is not an option at all. Perhaps you could propose a better alternative since you seem to disapprove of lay jurists and professional jurists.
I say we stick with amateurs.
They spend all day doing nothing - they would be free - and there would be a level of expertise thats not there in the wider community.
Originally posted by wibi did, in two posts ... :
While I can appreciate the levity zeeble, your option is not an option at all. Perhaps you could propose a better alternative since you seem to disapprove of lay jurists and professional jurists.
I say we stick with amateurs.
the jury system sucks ... but replacing it with a panel of jurists, that would REALLY suck ...
why not use a panel of the laity ... with members required to never have been an attorney, paralegal, or legislator ...
ok, having dispensed with the jury system, and (self-evidently) with the proposal to replace it with a panel of jurists, what could we do next?
how about maintaining criminal law in a database, and turning the sentencing phase into a database lookup? and much of the evidentiary phase as well?
cookie cutter justice ... no more of this "i done it cuz my pa beat me when i wuz little" crap ...
Originally posted by zeeblebotSince this thread has denigrated into nutjobery, I withdraw from it. If LH ever wants to have a serious discussion of the relative merits of a jury system v. a panel of "professional" judges in criminal trials, I suggest he start another thread giving a specific example of a non-jury, "professional" system that he finds more desirable than the US and English jury system. Than I could critique what I believe are the strengths and flaws of each. The present thread has been spammed into incoherency.
i did, in two posts ... :
the jury system sucks ... but replacing it with a panel of jurists, that would REALLY suck ...
why not use a panel of the laity ... with members required to never have been an attorney, paralegal, or legislator ...
ok, having dispensed with the jury system, and (self-evidently) with the proposal to replace it with a pa ...[text shortened]... ie cutter justice ... no more of this "i done it cuz my pa beat me when i wuz little" crap ...
Originally posted by no1maraudergiven past performance, i predict you'll be back in a month starting another quit-spamming spam-sub-thread.
Since this thread has denigrated into nutjobery, I withdraw from it. If LH ever wants to have a serious discussion of the relative merits of a jury system v. a panel of "professional" judges in criminal trials, I suggest he start another thread giving a specific example of a non-jury, "professional" system that he finds more desirable than the US and ...[text shortened]... lieve are the strengths and flaws of each. The present thread has been spammed into incoherency.