ForumGarden

Snyder, some people are likeable. Some are not. For a judge to have the capacity to let off people he approves of but to throw the book at people he dislikes is not just. That's why judges have so little choice in deciding what the law says in relation to a specific case in front of them, and rightly so. Americans, more than most people, ought to remember what happens when bigoted judges are commonplace.

spot;1274926 wrote: Snyder, some people are likeable. Some are not. For a judge to have the capacity to let off people he approves of but to throw the book at people he dislikes is not just. That's why judges have so little choice in deciding what the law says in relation to a specific case in front of them, and rightly so. Americans, more than most people, ought to remember what happens when bigoted judges are commonplace.


I can't see how juries are more "qualified"

Why not place everyone in differing levels of the Supreme Court all the while creating an incentive upon efficient judiciary decisions? Prisons in America specifically make thousands if not millions of dollars off of imprisoning people only to release them knowing the released criminals will be back with a pocket full of the tax payers' dollars

Keeping prisons and their business practices state controlled and you have one hell of a up "justice" system

Where the hell did you suddenly get juries from?

You posted a question about judges being constrained by precedent or not. Juries have nothing to do with what you asked.

spot;1274939 wrote: Where the hell did you suddenly get juries from?

You posted a question about judges being constrained by precedent or not. Juries have nothing to do with what you asked.


I want to eliminate the definition of "jury" as it's known.

When you have a gradient as far apart as "guilty" or "not guilty" comparative to facing "25 years to life" the judicial system is apparently flawed.