|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:12 PM EST |
| Is what? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Condlusion? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 12:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Jim Olsen on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 03:34 PM EST |
What, exactly, is the 'potential for abuse' in asking a judge to decide
insanely
complex patent cases? We already know that the 'potential for
abuse'
in asking
juries to decide them is no longer a potential, but a fully
realized fact.
---
Jim ---
Success in crime always invites to worse deeds. - Lord Coke [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 30 2013 @ 08:53 PM EST |
Would not prevent judicial abuse like in Europe in the 30s,
in South America in the 60/70s, and other countries in other
times under repressive regimes.
In that case, they would either allow less jury trials, or
only allow people 'of good standing' (or some other wanton
criteria) into the jury, or both. And intimidate jury
members, directly or indirectly, in coming to the "right"
opinion.
So I don't see how having a jury or not influences this in
any way. IMO, jury can only make matters worse in complex
cases with complex legal questions, as you are basically
asking non-experts to form an expert opinion.
~cd[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 03:50 AM EST |
"European ones suffer from the potential for abuse the jury is meant to
check."
1.) I get it. Since America has jury, we are free to ignore actual abuses that
happen. We are free to ignore that cost of jury trial is so high, that only 3%
of criminal cases get there. The system would jam entirely if you would stop
plea bargaining, but that is fine.
2.) Maybe that jury system is the best, but only richest can afford it. Anyone
else either plea bargain (criminal cases) or settle. Even if they dont and win
the trial, they will be in debt for the rest of their lives.
3.) The jury check seems to work once in a blue moon and occasionally, but there
are also plenty of ridiculous jury decisions.
What they certainly do is to add randomness into the results. Even lawyers
frequently claim that they can not predict how the jury will decide. It depends
too much on how much the want to go home, how much money they loose for each day
being on jury and whether they find defendant sympathetic.
4.) Even American appellate courts routinely strike down damages awarded (both
in negligence and patent cases) by jury as being ridiculously big.
5.) There are also actual problems with European systems. Italian courts and
courts in post communist countries are way too corrupt for example. But that
would require knowing a bit more about them then just "our is superior
cause they do not have jury and everyone has been telling me that American
system in superior over any other all my life".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
