First Jury In Argentine History.

[scotttswan]

http://www.ambito.com/noticia.asp?id=782060

Good thing or bad?

Personally i think its a good thing.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Bad!

Now you have to deal with one idiot (the judge) instead of 12 but you can appeal to the chamber where you have, normally, 3 intelkegent judges who clean the mess but to appeal a decision made by 12 idiots is super limited.

 

[scotttswan]

Bad!

why?

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Now judges has the dutyto express why the decided in one way and not in other way. This alliw you to show when they have prejudices (racism, for example). A jury does not have to explain that they founf him guilty because he was poor, dark or whatever.

 

[mulderfox]

i think it´s a good thing. less bullshit and more common sense

 

[scotttswan]

Now judges has the dutyto express why the decided in one way and not in other way. This alliw you to show when they have prejudices (racism, for example). A jury does not have to explain that they founf him guilty because he was poor, dark or whatever.

Judges can dismiss juries and demand a retrial if they believe justice has not been served.

The jury is made up of local voters so the potential jury will have "poor, dark or whatever" as well as possibly racist/prejudice people as potential jurors. Lawyers are there to dismiss the prejudice people in the jury before it goes to trial?

If a Judge is prejudice you're fucked but a jury has more than one person deciding the verdict. They wont all be be prejudice.

 

[Jaredberryman]

In a country where judges are constantly bribed and threatened, a jury is a good thing. It is much harder to bribe and threaten a whole jury panel. Also, a group of people together is more likely to make the right decision than just one person. Personally, I think one of the major problems with the system here is that it is too judge centered.

 

[EricLovesBA]

Just out of curiosity, how would you rate the Argentine education system for imparting clear, rational, objective critical thinking and analysis? For example if a very attractive Argentina woman accused you of rape and you were innocent, would you be relieved to have a jury trial here, or not?

 

[RodalfoWalsh]

In a country where judges are constantly bribed and threatened, a jury is a good thing. It is much harder to bribe and threaten a whole jury panel. Also, a group of people together is more likely to make the right decision than just one person. Personally, I think one of the major problems with the system here is that it is too judge centered.

Actually if you're the defendant I'm assuming you probably only have to find a way to bribe one of them. You have 12 opportunities to find someone who is easier to bribe or intimidate than a judge making $60000/month who has constant police protection.

 

[RodalfoWalsh]

Just out of curiosity, how would you rate the Argentine education system for imparting clear, rational, objective critical thinking and analysis? For example if a very attractive Argentina woman accused you of rape and you were innocent, would you be relieved to have a jury trial here, or not?

I'd rather have a jury trial. Innocent or guilty.

Now if I were the victim, I'd want my attacker to go before a judge sans jury.