I’ve always been confused by this.
​
Why would you want a bunch of randoms to decide your fate, and not the actual judge with a law degree and years of experience?
Why do those people have more power than the judge? They can decide anything they want and the judge is basically just the guy who signs and does the paperwork.
In: 2634
Because the main point is impartiality.
The core issue was not how legal cases were decided. The order of core issues was:
1 – People had been deprived of life and liberty. They could just throw you in some palace tower prison because they felt like it.
2 – So the US system said, NO. We won’t do that. You can only go to prison if you actually break a law.
3 – So how do they prove you broke a law? Well, the government can’t just SAY you broke one.
4 – No. The government has to show up in a public trial and show proof that you did something bad. And you get to show up and argue back on your behalf.
5 – Ok, well if the gov says “he did it” and you say “no I didn’t” who gets to decide who is right? NOT the government. We’re not going to let the Government decide if the Government won the argument.
6 – THE PEOPLE will decide. People accused of a crime have the right to have an impartial group of their peers listen to both sides of the argument, and decide if the government proved you did bad or not.
—————————————————–
TL;DR: The government has to prove you deserve to go to jail. The government can’t get to decide for itself whether the government won a case. That’s not fair. The judge works for the government. A jury doesn’t work for either side. They just “tell it to the crowd and let them decide who sounds right”
Latest Answers