[Wolfman]

The jury generally only decides innocence or guilt(if you are being tried by jury, that is.).

From my understanding (I'm no legal major after all), in the States you're tried by a Jury during sentencing. So, here atleast (which I said in my earlier posts) it's the Jury that decides the punishment.

[Huntster]

But it's the Jury that convicts and sentences people, the Judge having a small amount of say in the matter.

1) In most cases, a defendent has a choice between a judge or jury trial. Most choose the jury because of the exponentially greater chances of a mistrial or the jury not hearing pertinent evidence

2) Judges can rule on what juries can or cannot hear, and that occurs regularly. In that way, judges effectively control the trial.

[legalboxerbriefs]

1) In most cases, a defendent has a choice between a judge or jury trial. Most choose the jury because of the exponentially greater chances of a mistrial or the jury not hearing pertinent evidence

Generally, a jury trial is by far more preferable if your argument is one largely based on emotional manipulation. If your case isn't emotionally compelling at all, then you're probably going to want a trial by judge only. I guess I could see why many defendants might want a jury trial, but I'm not sure why that would necessarily be the case "most" of the time.

[LiquidPony]

I had a similar thought yesterday, whilst watching the HBO Documentary Shouting Fire.

One of the interviewees, Hon. Richard Posner, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, made a pretty scary comment, and I wondered if he could be removed from office for it.

I don't have the exact quote (I'll try to find it), but it was along the lines of ... " ... so, yes, the Patriot Act introduced some restrictions on the Constitution, mild by historical standards, which people have taken issue with ..."

Basically, this short clip makes it clear that Posner has no problem with "mild restrictions" on our Constitutional rights. On a related note, he also expresses the opinion that children in American High Schools are not protected by the First Amendment, because "they're just kids" and "they have nothing to contribute to the marketplace of ideas."

The oath of office for a Federal Judge ...

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Now, shouldn't any judge who freely admits that he supports restrictions on the Constitution be immediately removed from office? Is that not in direct opposition to his Oath of Office?

Perhaps I'm overreacting, or maybe I just don't understand the oath.

Anyway, I thought this related to the OP. Thoughts?

[Godstud]

I think maybe the judges are forgetting their oaths and need to be reminded.

[humanrights]

I find the constitution and the oaths of office to be perfectly clear.

One may have to use a dictionary of the 1792 era to establish the proper definitions.

The problem is that sometimes there are multiple definitions for words and all of them, or only one may be applicable.

Take amendment 2, for example:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If the intention was that everybody could have the latest and greatest weapon, amendment 2 might have been written thusly: People have the right to own and use the latest and most powerful weapon that money can buy.

Instead the words Militia (well regulated), security of a free state, keep and bear arms and infringed were used. The purpose may have been to be vague, but the people of that era were extremely literate. I think those words qualify the conditions under which people could relate to arms.

My point is that people don't have to try to be psychic to determine the meaning of the laws. The words are clear to me.

I think judges have strayed from truth.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

is the reason for the people to keep and bear arms [but not own???]

[colingra]

Judges are much maligned in our society. They aren't Government officials, neither are they snake-oil lawyers. Their responsibility is to justice and the constitution. Of course, sometimes they do get it wrong, as all judges will inevitably do in the course of their long careers, but the gift of a common-law system means that an appeal can overturn that decision, potentially changing not just one person's life, but the entire law under which they were sentenced. Judges can only make a decision based on the evidence before them and the testimony of the witnesses brought before the court. Where the evidence is flawed, inevitably so too will be the judgement. But Justices don't work for the benefit of the Government, and they certainly shouldn't favor one argument over another without impartiality before he has evaluated all the evidence.
Their allegiance lies with the Rule of Law, which is a principle that lies beyond government policy or public opinion. It is the principle that lies at the heart of all jurisdictions, and is a constant for all countries that respect that Justice comes from an impartial and independent Judiciary, that creates and influences the law over time and by evolution to improve and develop it for the modern world.
Should Judges be punished for wrong decisions? No. Their wrong decisions form part of a foundation, that inevitably leads to the evolution of the law as a whole.

[gunnarwordon]

Nobody should be executed for anything- killing somebody, or getting a judicial decision about killing somebody wrong. Killing is killing. The shear thought of killing another individual with state sponsor is barbaric.