If you were on trial would you prefer judge or jury?
 

Which would you want to determine the verdict in your case? A judge or a jury?

Judge - somebody with experience with law and logic; single person

Jury - your 'peers' (average joe )who will use personal experience, common sense to come up with a verdict; usually 6 or more people I think

hahaha i was in discussion with someone else about this

jury because there just normal people and if theres any doubt they are more likley to let you off. they dont want to have the guilt if you may be innocent

Same rationale here, I would go for a jury too. :)

judge... easier to bribe :thumbsup

judge for sure.

jury of my peers

Depends Mike...

If it's a complex case that could roll on for months smells like a preference for the bench to ultimately deliver a verdict. Another factor in that is there is nada wrong with three judges present to hear the case and decide.

If it's a simple issue, Joe Public is fine as long as they can be edited out for bias and total stupidity. (Only been on one jury and hell - if that was representative of the average jury - Gawd help us.)

It may depend on the quality of judges, - on average the judges I've ever dealt with were 100 times superior to dealing with Joe, very quick on picking detail up, clean cut logic and an ability to assess and verbally express in a succinct manner - without the bullshit. Only once did a senior judge criticise one of his junior colleges - and that was warranted.

Having said that - there are a minority of real foul judges :)

Judge - a jury is too unpredictable of late. A judge knows the law and will apply it in a more just manner.

BTW.. One thing that prob will give anyone confidence in the legal process is watching three judges in action in the higher courts - they are the friggin cream and a pleasure to witness!!! :winkwink:

Only seen this three times ever and all three were appeal cases but each covered civil, criminal and the European Court.

On each occasion the professionalism was impeccable - a quick picking up of all salient points in a scenario and reciting these back to confirm - without one deviation, error or misunderstanding.

Once there was a complex issue and they listened to the whole scenario, chatted between themselves for about a minute, then the lead judge delivered the decision of the court. This was not read from any documents but he spoke for about 30 minutes, without pause, and summarised the whole case very accurately and without any overlap or repetition and delivered their judgement. Awesome clear cut logic and delivery :pimp

They also all had a good sense of humor :)

the judge can be having a bad day..you're fucked

12 people i would rather have

Would depend on the issue I was on trial for and my defense strategy.

Judges will give you a cold, heard reading of the law, where as a jury can be swayed based on emotion and irrelevant drivel. Either one can be beneficial or detrimental depending on the situation. If I was looking to have the law ignored for a good reason, Ihahaha8217;d get a jury as they have the power and can be inspired to do so. Getting a judge to strike down a law is darn near impossible.

Judge if you have the right lawyer who 'knows' the judge, definitely.

If the system worked and Judges where unbiased then a Judge - as that dosnt seem to be the case then it would have to be a Jury.

Richard Dawkins wrote quite a persuasive essay on this subject arguing that if you're guilty you should choose a jury, but if you're innocent you should choose a judge.

Sure.. there are judges who are biased and dangerous depending on the case before them. Noticed these are often junior judges (not necessarily by age) and never aspire to higher things. Once you climb the "judge tree", the quality starts oozing and far less chance of bias - but for an ordinary court, it's going to be a gamble what you end up with.

Other stuff - tho that does not happen where you are D, is "elected judges" or those placed into power by political figures - that seems to result in variance a lot more and is a kinda mish-mash of independency of the judiciary.

That is prob a very accurate assessment :winkwink: With a jury there is an often illogical persuasion exercise that can be played out.

Jury of my peers.

probably depends on the circumstances, on what you are on trial for, where, etc

Judge. A jury is made up of people not smart enough to get out of jury duty.

I have been advocating professional juries for years. When you hear some of the interviews of your "peers" after trials it's just amazing how ignorant those deciding futures are in matters of law.

preciesly - so they wont send you down unelss they are 100% sure. this would only count for big crimes though i think

If you're innocent, you go trial by judge. If you're guilty, you use the jury.

Great answers. So many factors to think about that I didn't consider. All things being equal I think I would choose a judge.

I also wonder when the heck they're going to ban victim's eye witness testimony from courtrooms. It's a fact that they're completley unreliable yet extremely persuasive.

Jury for sure.

I had a federal judge do all sorts of crooked things to me including: denying me discovery, screaming at me in court, calling me prejudicial names, and re-opening the case *3 years* after it was closed/ settled to punish me for my criticism of the way he handled the case. He is a fucker of the highest magnitude.

Jury.. ALL THE WAY!!

Take the jury. All you need is ONE to side with you or have reasonable doubts and you have a hung jury.

Judges are just as slanted and corrupt as the "criminals" they preside over.

Judge because he will use his knowledge of the law to determine your fate, not someone who hears what you "supposidly" did and then think "OMG WHAT A BAD MAN, DEATH PENALTY!"

THAT is not a judge - it's an embarassment! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh