The serious issue is of trial without jury - but more seriously that the police can't guarantee the safety of the jury. We're becoming more and more of a society where people won't always use the law to seek redress because the criminals can threaten the innocent and get away with it.
- the laws contain the minimum and maximum sentence, so he can't condemn someone to death because he stole a car
- he has to give a motivation for his sentence
- if the condemned thinks that the sentence is too harsh, he can appeal the judgement and another judge will handle his case
One of the best rationales for having a judge in addition to a jury (aside from the "jury of peers" thing) is because the jury can in theory do what the judge could not - hear the proper evidence only. If there is inflammatory evidence that is not admissible, the judge can keep it away from the jury and thus avoid allowing it to taint a verdict. If there is no jury, the judge would have to rely on himself not to allow it to affect his decision.
That being said, I still think juries are mostly comprised of morons, but nevertheless would be furious if they ever tried to eliminate them without consent here.[/QUOTE]
Britain was wrong to freeze assets of Abu Qatada, rules EU, clearing way for him to get compensation | Mail Online
EU court orders release of Abu Qatada assets | UK news | guardian.co.uk
We should have the right to freeze the assets of a nutter without Europe jumping down our throats.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)