If you were
sitting on a jury involving an ICBC injury claim, and the plaintiff's lawyer told you that the Defendant fell asleep at the wheel and «must pay for breaching the rules of the road» would your judgment be compromised?
Not exact matches
So anyone who
sits on jury and condemns someone to death, the judge that imposes the sentence, the guards working in the jail and anyone else who is
involved in executing prisoners is going to hell?
Reading First Things may disqualify you from
sitting on a
jury, at least if a lawyer decides that such reading shows that you are too
involved in the practice of your religion.
Benno Tempel, director of the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, said that he felt it was acceptable for museum directors to
sit on juries and boards, but «if there's money
involved, that money should go to the institution.»
Reasons included (1) judges «grade
on a curve» and, after
sitting through 20 cases
involving violent crimes, might not find a more minor crime as serious whereas a
jury would not share this context; (2) defendants will select those judges who they believe will be more inclined to acquit; (3) judges are bound by fixed sentencing rules so rather than sentence a defendant of a nonserious crime to a lengthy term they avoid that dilemma through acquittal; (4) judges might better understand the complex elements of certain corporate crimes and, unlike a
jury, would recognize when the prosecution failed to carry its burden and (5) some judges may just have something against prosecutors.