That was then, this is the 21st century
Yes, in the 18th and 19th century I could well believe that a judge was a bigoted racist
Saying that the US judiciary is fundamentally racist because of what happened in the days of slavery, of racial segregation, and even the WWII laws that saw Japanese Americans interned because of an assumption on their loyalty based on race, is a very flawed argument to say the least
You'd make a better case arguing that Angela Merkel's German government is anti-Semitic, because the German government 1933-45 was.
Nope, by and large they're sheep possessing neither education nor a desire to get any
You claim that the US judiciary of educated, intelligent people, is fundamentally flawed with racism and can't be trusted to deliver honest, impartial judgments, yet you're willing to let uneducated, ignorant people deliver one ?
You'll have to explain that contradiction to me
10-4
And that's my point, don't you think a jury should decide your guilt/innocence based on the evidence and not personal feelings....yes they might well convict an innocent man based on their perception of his personal feelings towards them.
And are you saying that's a good thing ?
You might want to be judged by 12 ignorant people, who can barely read and whose judgement might be clouded by the fact I despise them, I do not. I'd refer to be judged by professional people
Unless of course I was guilty, then I'd play Mr Nice to the jury and my lawyer would perform like a seasoned actor to cast doubt in their minds that I really not such a bad guy
No, I think I am straight to the point in explaining why I wouldn't want a jury to judge me if I'm innocent
OK, if Trump appoints a judge it will probably mean he's right wing (eg: Brett Kavanaugh). But are you saying Trump's selections for SCOTUS are fundamentally racist or therefore untrustworthy to deliver the correct guilty/not guilty verdict in a felony trial ?
Sorry but the miscarriages of justice the US criminal justice system has delivered (OJ Simpson, Rodney King, George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony to name a few) are something worth "whining" about
Why do you say that the disparity of money is a problem in the inquisitorial system ?
It's a problem in the adversarial system, as a high powered lawyer can easily sway a jury full of legal "sheep". Not so much professional judges who ask the questions to the witnesses
There is not the court room drama in an inquisitorial system where the judges perform the witness examinations
Again, it really doesn't matter if your public defender is stupid in an inquisitorial system, all he/she has to do is present the witnesses/evidence to the court, the judges will examine the witnesses/evidence and decide their worth
The US system of a public defender who's over worked with 100 cases and can't conduct anything like a solid defense for you, is a further damnation of flawed system
Criminal justice should work well for the poor as well as the rich
The adversarial jury system does not - no way does a poor man get the same justice as a rich man - and that alone should see the jury system scrapped
"And Justice for All" - it's a sick joke
I did, and that is why I say scrap trial by jury and eliminate a two tier justice system that favors the rich and always will do.
