Sg without Jury system
-
Sg abolished trial by jury system soon after independence.LKY had the first hand
experience of the drawbacks of jury system.Lee Kuan Yew, who had been assigned the case, explains that he did what any advocate does: He "worked on the weaknesses of the jury -- their biases, their prejudices, their reluctance really to find four Mussulmen [Muslims] guilty of killing in cold blood or in a heat of great passion, religious passion, an RAF officer, his wife and child." And he employed "the simple tricks of advocacy -- contradictions between one witness and another, contradiction between a witness and his previous statement to the police and the preliminary enquiry."
Pointing out that the French and other Latin nations do not use trial by jury, Lee Kuan Kew argues that it is too "alien" to the basic social attitudes of many other cultures, including those of Asia.
2.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Grand Jury System
3.PROs and CONs of jury system.
4.Some local and most of foreigners critize PAP abolished jury system
in order to control the jurisdiction.Buy how can a layman to know
the true or false of another profession,or to find the truths of a case?
Even the jury is a professional.say a lawyer,can he determine
the accounts of a complicated commercial case?
So shall we Sporean just follow blindly what the US,UK did for many
years in jury system?Find out what are the pros and cons.
5.After u do your home works,voice your own opions on jury system,
no matter u for or against it.
It is a shame that we Sporean just follw the old practises of
other countries without examining the system.
But i am not saying we do just to make a difference.
The ultimate question is if the new method or system will
make Sg a better place to stay.
6.Anyway,Sg is the top 11th country in the world in WORLDWIDE QUALITY
OF LIFE INDEX by EIU 2005.
7.In economy,Sg is the second freest
8and that the judiciary has a notable record of siding with prominent politicians against political opposition.
9.Any ratings in jurisdiction system? -
Buy over the jury and I am the law
-
lionnoisy,
pre) how come u r not examining the pros and cons of a one-judge system either?
1) That's LKY's own opinion; we don't need to keep listening to him.
2) ???
3) hmmm...
4) Did you read Denyse Tessenhohn's commentary in TODAY? She sharply criticized the ignorance of many academically-trained experts and asked everyone why should we rely on experts so much. So one of the cons of the jury system is that jurors might be too emotional; And supposedly a judge can't? Unless you can prove that a single judge can fully restrain his emotions while judging a case, the argument doesn't hold.
Anyway, would you be pacified if we had a jury consisting entirely of professional lawyers?
5) Have you read up on the other side yet??
6) Just what is used to measure quality of life? I suspect that the EIU survey measured quality of life in terms of average income, which is of course inaccurate since some people earn much more than others. If they measured it in terms of housing, then tey probably didn't take into consideration the quality of housing and housing expenditure out of gross income should be taken into consideration too.
7) Economic freedom has nothing to do with whether there is a jury or not. So this point doesn't strengthen your argument.
8 ) And it appears that our CJ has a notable record of siding with govenrment politicians in cases against opposition politicians.
9) shall look for it.
the (unconvinced) pikamaster -
Confuse the jury.. and we have a mis-trial.
Select a majority Chinese jury, and we have a high conviction degree on a malay.
Select a majority Malay jury, and we have a high conviction degree on a Chinese.
Select a majority Indian jury, and both are screwed.
What the hell does a group of citizens know about a complicated law entanglement in the first place... they weren't even have a quick law lesson.
Put me up on the Jury.. and If the Accuse is a dame JUTE and CUTE Slut.. Who cares if she is guilty, she already have 60% of my heart. I might even ask for her number later.
-
Precisely because the judge may be biased that we need the jury to check and balance on findings of facts.
So why is it so difficult to understand the higher purpose of a jury. A power that is too powerful for the good of anyone will want to decide everything and do away with jury.
Let all the citizens understand the need for findings of facts and not be presumed to be guilty until proven innocent as is now increasingly likely to happen in our autocratic system.
" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">
-
Some of our judges had been wrong on many occassions and so had the CJ, is justice similar to tossing a dice?
-
One of the reason why awarded sues amt are damn high, is because the money are not the jurist.. wat. That's why I am very fascinated, plaintiff being awarded with millions of dollars.. in some ridiculars cases.
I can't imagine asking jurist to ignor facts, saying it's irrelevant, when they heard them. How to be forget... I just don't believe in the jury system. -
The jury never gets to award the amounts, its the judge's job.
-
The problem is that you are getting yoiu perceptions from the USA, which imo, is really really shite.Originally posted by MobyDog:One of the reason why awarded sues amt are damn high, is because the money are not the jurist.. wat. That's why I am very fascinated, plaintiff being awarded with millions of dollars.. in some ridiculars cases.
I can't imagine asking jurist to ignor facts, saying it's irrelevant, when they heard them. How to be forget... I just don't believe in the jury system. -
The thing about a jury system is that it is representative of society. If the law os there to serve society, then surely we must accept that sometimes, society should be allowed to say "the law is an arse, and we are getting him off".
-
What is this about? Can make it simple?