The Law Is there value in a more transparent judicial selection process?

[ShanDog]

Your previous post is nothing more than a personal attack. No big deal to me, because it says more about you, than me.

I never took any exception to anything you wrote, you are just being precious and worse than that you are COMPLETELY misrepresenting what I wrote.
You made a statement, which to me (1) didn't make any sense and (2) is typical of the ill informed rubbish that often underlies any discussion about the judicial process.
I merely asked you to substantiate your claim. (You still haven't done so!)
You quoted a US article to attempt to back up your claim.
The article you quoted specifically mentioned numerous cases where verdicts were overturned specifically because of prosecutor conduct.
Leaves me wondering why the heck lawyers would manipulate if it results in them losing their case?

Instead of reading things I never said into my posts perhaps you could instead use your energy to consider the implications of your claim & the evidence you supplied to back it up.

To be condescending to you...the implication is that there is little scope within the judicial system for funny business by lawyers. Before you rant that I am saying lawyers don't do funny business, of course it happens. Perhaps you can research how the judicial system, & its rules & processes, regulates against funny business by lawyers. When you do that you might develop an appreciation for why somebody might think that your claim is a little off.

I don't have the stats at hand but BY FAR the most common complaint against lawyers (by their clients) is funny business in relation to trust accounts.

It's cool, you win.

 

[Number37]

It's cool, you win.

Applying a different set of rules for yourself, makes you the real winner.

 

[AM]

Perhaps there’s an argument for the abolition of the jury system full stop. I’m not sure it’s possible in the age of the 24/7 news cycle to comprehensively sequester a jury and prevent external noise trumping evidence in delivery of the verdict.

From a transparency perspective, judge only hearings have some merit. Judges have to give reasons for their decisions. Juries don't and in fact aren't permitted to do so which makes appealing their verdicts much more difficult. Because of their training it's arguable judges are better able to give proper weight to evidence; remove themselves from the emotion thereby seeing it purely as an intellectual task and as such are better placed to analyse evidence, assess witness veracity and therefore make more accurate and reliable findings of fact.

The flip side is that juries apply the brakes to the powers of the state and judiciary and go a long way to ensuring justice is administered in accordance with community standards. Also, judges are extremely good at giving juries directions in relation to the law and provide brief impartial summaries of the cases put by both parties in order the make a juries task less arduous.

There have also been cases where applications have been successfully been made on behalf of the accused for trial by judge sitting alone in circumstances where the degree and content of media coverage was considered to have rendered a fair trial impossible and due to the complexity and/or length of a trial.

Ultimately, both the defence and the prosecution have recourse to appeal whichever system is used.

Of course trial by jury is a constitutional right in the Commonwealth and considered almost inviolable by the states. So a mandated change is not something likely to become a reality.

Getting back to elected judges, there was a ripper satirical piece on Shaun Micallef's 'Mad as Hell' during the week. But for the life of me I can't find a clip. Other less humorous stuff - yes! Damn!