Oh, Catholics, you delightfully hypocritical fucks.

[Something completely different]

No one understands the German legal system, and that is a fact (and I am not joking)

It is split up in big number of sections, has several different high courts and a enormous number of different processings etc.

It swallows the biggest share of tax money in Germany and all of that to guarantee that it is as fair as possible.

I like it

[Creed of Heresy]

So basically, guilt is determined by three state-appointed individuals rather than a group of non-partial individuals and are declared before the end whether or not the individual is guilty, and then punishment is decided on at the end?

That sounds like it could easily be abused in so many ways I don't know where to begin listing them. No offense but you guys place waaay too much trust in your government. I don't even trust my government to deliver my mail on time to me.

---

I also wouldn't say it's fair...given you guys' censorship laws.

[Something completely different]

Guilt and the punishment is decided by a group of 1-3 state apointed judges, yes.

I do not recall a single case of abuse here for a very long time.

There are certain scandels, like 20 years ago when the husband of a serverly injured police officere was sentenced to 20 years in jail for attempted murder, because the judges were biased towards the account of the state prosecution and the police.

But we are well known to have one of the best working justice systems, with very few misjudgments and most importent of all ! transparecy !.

So I guess it works.



And generaly, I find the Idea of havin a bunch of strangers making a decision over someones guilt in court to be very weird and rather disturbing.

[Violet]

And generaly, I find the Idea of havin a bunch of strangers making a decision over someones guilt in court to be very weird and rather disturbing.

I wouldn't mind if it didn't come with legalese and related baggage which almost none of them will understand. But really... there are so many *other* things wrong with our justice system: who's got time for this one?

[Something completely different]

nope, I think the jury thing is the worst part.

A bunch of people who sit at home and watch "Law & Order" and then think a court trial looks exactly like that, and then choose to let someone off the hook because the real thing isn`t like thing on TV.
Or just imagine getting a trial on a black guy and all the jury consists of members of the KKK or people from Misssissipi.

The entire thing just reeks of "being wrong"

[Violet]

Well, I know someone who is happier for it...

[Creed of Heresy]

Actually the jury selection standards do not allow, say, a black person to be given a trial by a jury of racists. There's no way to accurately determine whether or not they are immediately of course but a jury has to reach a consensus on the verdict. It's not a democracy; everyone stays in deliberation until there is a unanimous consent amongst the jury on the verdict, and deliberations can go on for hours, if not days. That's why there seems to be such showmanship in trials; the jury has to be FULLY convinced. Hence "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" comes into play. It's up to the judge to determine the punishment since regardless of whether or not they have a degree in law they WILL have to be educated on the various statutes and court cases since a terrible ruling can and often will cost them their entire career. What's good for the goose...

And I imagine there wouldn't be many scandals. Like I said, censorship. How many opportunities are individuals who are convicted wrongly going to exactly have to appeal the decision, and furthermore, who is going to listen? I'm not saying the American justice system is perfect, far from it, but the German one isn't either, and I find it MORE disturbing that there's been so few scandals than if there were more of them. It's kind of a matter of "what AREN'T we hearing about?" I mean it sucks that we have wrongful convictions here but that's bound to happen. No justice system is perfect. At least ours seem to be exposed every so often.

[Something completely different]

"showmanship" is the word you used, is why I gave the overexaturated "Law & Order" example previously.

In a court a verdict or guilt/non guilt isn`t a product for sale, it is a fact to be determined.

Every court in every nation works after the principle of "In dubio pro reo".

And the judges are given the decision here because they are not convinced by "showmanship" and are expected to be unbiased, unlike the mob.

We have a court of appeal and a high court, and I am confident that the number of low scandels is due to the good justice system we have.

[Creed of Heresy]

Hence I said SEEMS to be showmanship, not actually is. Having actually been in court several times [twice for myself, the rest as a witness or as a juror] I can assure you it's not nearly as exciting as the media trumps up, nor is it even really the circus act, either. Our judicial system IS broken but it's not for the way the courtroom runs but rather the laws behind it; a man robs a store at gunpoint and steals $500, gets a year in prison. A CEO embezzles millions, gets 30 days, all because of the wording of the laws. THAT'S where the break occurs. For the most part, the court ruling system itself is actually pretty stable, and a person who self-educates themselves on the law in the circumstances they are in can find themselves even better off than they would be if they hired a lawyer. In fact I've been hearing more and more about people self-representing who successfully defend or argue their cases after having been told by a lawyer that it was an untenable case to make.

The problem with the judges is that they ARE going to be biased. What rigorous indoctrination process have they undergone to scrub their minds completely clean of bias? Because even the religious spend many, many years of fanatical devotion and that's only because they believe in a great eternal bliss after death, not the monotony of the courtroom. They are as likely to be biased as any other individual which is why you have to maximize the amount of people who are making the verdict of guilty or not guilty; more people means more opinions and if you force a consensus, people are going to either have to A: Bicker over their personal opinions which will get NOWHERE, or B: Scrutinize the findings presented in the case to determine innocence or guilt. Whereas one to three individuals can more likely share a bias than, say, 30 will. And if each of those 30 MUST come to agreement on something more than just their opinion...well, there you go. It's not mob justice, it's impartiality imposed through need of consensus under the threat of being bored off your ass and spinning your wheels doing nothing.

[Dee Dee Ramone]

No offense but you guys place waaay too much trust in your government. I don't even trust my government to deliver my mail on time to me.

Does the government still deliver mail in the United Socialist States?

Seriously, I do trust my government. I think this is a huge cultural difference between the US and Europe. We don't trust civilians in the court system.

My trust would dissapear immediately when the death penalty would be re-introduced. Than I'd be paranoid.


Edit; Germany and the Netherlands don't trust civilians in court, it seems many other European countries do trust them.