Dutch human rights activist, Olax Outis had no “lawful defence” and was stopped from give a closing speech – but was acquitted by the jury in a verdict seen as a snub to a system complicit in Genocide.
You, too, are welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook about why we have juries. I replied originally because the article was bad and because people don’t seem to consider why you might keep stuff from a jury. Having done that, if people still disagree, they are welcome to criticise the English legal system and its ordinary justifications without getting me to copy and paste them.
If you can’t justify it, I’m obviously not going to change my mind. I’ve read many books and done my own thinking. I’m sure it’s a huge surprise that someone could have thought about something and come to a different conclusion than you
You’re welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook. I’m not going to do your work for you. Tired of explaining and justifying my position and I’ll imply others are ignorant instead
Look mate. We clearly have differing opinions. Maybe you don’t want to convince me of yours, which is fine, but if that’s the case, there’s not much point replying. If you do, linking me to other ways facts can be determined in legal contexts doesn’t do anything to achieve that, does it? I do already know about judge-led trials, in case that wasn’t obvious, and their existence doesn’t support your opinion from what little of it you’ve shared.
I’ve had about five billion replies on this, mostly more one liners that show no thought. Try and do better.
Why would you need a jury to determine facts?
I don’t have the inclination to quote standard legal theory at you, it’s not like I’m on crackpot territory here
It’s a valid question. If this were about fact finding, a judge should be more capable than random people.
You, too, are welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook about why we have juries. I replied originally because the article was bad and because people don’t seem to consider why you might keep stuff from a jury. Having done that, if people still disagree, they are welcome to criticise the English legal system and its ordinary justifications without getting me to copy and paste them.
Juries shouldn’t only decide on what the law says and the facts, but also on their sense of justice applied to a specific case.
No, I won’t justify my answer. Go read a book
If you can’t justify it, I’m obviously not going to change my mind. I’ve read many books and done my own thinking. I’m sure it’s a huge surprise that someone could have thought about something and come to a different conclusion than you
You’re welcome to go and read a Wikipedia article or textbook. I’m not going to do your work for you. Tired of explaining and justifying my position and I’ll imply others are ignorant instead
He sent me to Wikipedia, I did his work for him, and then he said he wanted to be convinced some more. 😜
You’re not listening:
Piss off if you’re not going to read what I write.
You think you’re the only one who reads books and does their own thinking?
There is a reason most developed countries do not make use of random people to determine a verdict.
Go read a book. Or Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact#Judges
Look mate. We clearly have differing opinions. Maybe you don’t want to convince me of yours, which is fine, but if that’s the case, there’s not much point replying. If you do, linking me to other ways facts can be determined in legal contexts doesn’t do anything to achieve that, does it? I do already know about judge-led trials, in case that wasn’t obvious, and their existence doesn’t support your opinion from what little of it you’ve shared.
I’ve had about five billion replies on this, mostly more one liners that show no thought. Try and do better.
That turned into an opinion pretty quick
Was that you trying? I don’t know which answer is worse. Bye.
Honestly I did try when you mentioned Wikipedia, but now it seems like you’re upset that you were wrong about needing juries to determine facts.