11-02-2004, 10:49
I am proposing a new setup for the courts, a way of seeing that not only is justice done, but done fairly, and without idiocy.
Too many of us have witnessed the dumb getting rich by being as such, i.e.: the woman who spilled coffe on herself like most of us have done as well, then sued McDaniels (TM); or the man who broke into a home, then fell and cut himself, he earned over 10 grand for being dumb.
My suggestions are as follows, all courts will abide by one of these two rules;
1) The 2-judge agree or pass
2) The educated jury
The 2-Judge agree or Pass
Two judges must always be present for any trial above a misdemeanor.
The two judges will hear all testimonies, accusations, and defenses together; they will then decide seperately, without speaking to each other, a course of action (i.e., giulty, not-giulty, or innocent as well as jail time, fines, or capital punishment), the judges will exchange their suggestions, and if a compromised resolution cannot be brought about between the two judges (if one says giulty and one says inocent) then it will be passed to either a new set of judges or an educated jury. (If passed twice from the 2-judge system, then the 4 judges must gather, discuss, and resolve; or it will be passed to the juries.)
An Educated Jury
A jury of 15 people that can prove themselves to be understanding of the basics of law, but not by their beliefs of right and wrong. (This is meant to be used in some of the more important cases, nothing that takes only a day)
The jury is 15 to prevent indesiciveness (a "hung" jury).
The jury selection process will no longer allow personal questions, it will become a right to volunteer for, not a random letter sent to Bob the biulder. Each jury member must be atleast 28, giving them a larger understanding of the world.
No viewers of the trials may speak aloud, as well as media is not to say anything to the jury members at any time.
A 'Proceedings Judge' will be present only to verify the legality of evidence, keep order amongst the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), and to moderate any objections.
The jury is to be addressed at all times, the 'PJ' is only their because he knows more exactly the lines of the law.
The jury is always given the same basic guidelines for suggested punishments, thought they may choose to inflict other punishments upon them. They will have 4 hours of the next morning after the final statements are made to choose the puishment. (This is important as many people will be too hasty in their choice on the final day out of shear hatred or love for the actions of the accused.)
I would also like to change the ruling of not-giulty and replace it with not-provable, beause that is what it really is.
I post this because I am not a delegate, I passed that on to a smarter and wiser member of my region, whom i trust. But I will not present her with these ideas until I here some suggestions, questions, and remarks to these things I have found are hard to explain.
Too many of us have witnessed the dumb getting rich by being as such, i.e.: the woman who spilled coffe on herself like most of us have done as well, then sued McDaniels (TM); or the man who broke into a home, then fell and cut himself, he earned over 10 grand for being dumb.
My suggestions are as follows, all courts will abide by one of these two rules;
1) The 2-judge agree or pass
2) The educated jury
The 2-Judge agree or Pass
Two judges must always be present for any trial above a misdemeanor.
The two judges will hear all testimonies, accusations, and defenses together; they will then decide seperately, without speaking to each other, a course of action (i.e., giulty, not-giulty, or innocent as well as jail time, fines, or capital punishment), the judges will exchange their suggestions, and if a compromised resolution cannot be brought about between the two judges (if one says giulty and one says inocent) then it will be passed to either a new set of judges or an educated jury. (If passed twice from the 2-judge system, then the 4 judges must gather, discuss, and resolve; or it will be passed to the juries.)
An Educated Jury
A jury of 15 people that can prove themselves to be understanding of the basics of law, but not by their beliefs of right and wrong. (This is meant to be used in some of the more important cases, nothing that takes only a day)
The jury is 15 to prevent indesiciveness (a "hung" jury).
The jury selection process will no longer allow personal questions, it will become a right to volunteer for, not a random letter sent to Bob the biulder. Each jury member must be atleast 28, giving them a larger understanding of the world.
No viewers of the trials may speak aloud, as well as media is not to say anything to the jury members at any time.
A 'Proceedings Judge' will be present only to verify the legality of evidence, keep order amongst the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s), and to moderate any objections.
The jury is to be addressed at all times, the 'PJ' is only their because he knows more exactly the lines of the law.
The jury is always given the same basic guidelines for suggested punishments, thought they may choose to inflict other punishments upon them. They will have 4 hours of the next morning after the final statements are made to choose the puishment. (This is important as many people will be too hasty in their choice on the final day out of shear hatred or love for the actions of the accused.)
I would also like to change the ruling of not-giulty and replace it with not-provable, beause that is what it really is.
I post this because I am not a delegate, I passed that on to a smarter and wiser member of my region, whom i trust. But I will not present her with these ideas until I here some suggestions, questions, and remarks to these things I have found are hard to explain.