castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Waray wrote: No offense, but I don't like the English Common Law system at all.

It has a solid benefit for the primary users of the justice system. Those primary users being judges and lawyers. It strongly honors precedent. With precedent being paramount, innovation is held to much higher scrutiny. Only highly skilled lawyers attempt innovation. Precedent enables junior lawyers a stable platform to refine their craft without endangering their defendants.

Precedent is also very useful to make a stable appeals system.

Of course, it also makes for a stagnant judiciary system as well.

That's why the US adding the unprofessional jury system is the perfect counterbalance to basic Common Law system.

To judges, prosecutors, and defending lawyers the system is fairly carved into stone. The chaos factor is completely in the hands of the jury. Thus change and challenge is the province of the citizenry.

Where it should be, imo.



Quote: hearsay is allowed as evidence

*shudders*

[Eddy]

I had to vote no even though I do think some people need killing. My reasoning is that you can't undo a death penalty and there are far too many cases of people being found innocent years later.

[JuntaJoe]

It's ok to demand accountability in the death penalty system, Eddy.

I'm not so callous to accept a few "mistakes" to get the murderers killed.

You've seen me state that I know it costs more to execute someone than simply warehouse them until their natural demise.

That high cost is the appeals system.


Trust me, there are many death penalty advocates who get mad at the appeals process and desire to streamline it severely.

I'm not in that camp.

If it costs society a high price to ensure that executions are only done to the wicked then consider me as accepting of that high cost.