Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
47 other states manage with the provision... NC can as well.
It might also help to reduce the number of lawyers.
This last point is why I'll vote "FOR"
Yeah - but - NC Policy Watch notes this:
Forty-nine states and the federal criminal justice system already allow defendants to waive the right to a jury trial, and experiences there can help inform a voter’s choice.
Most of those jurisdictions require the consent of the prosecutor before a defendant can have a bench trial, Welty noted.
“That allows prosecutors to block bench trials in cases in which they believe that influential defense lawyers might seek preferential treatment for their clients,” he said.
The amendment proposed here has no such requirement
From how I take it, most states (except North Carolina and maybe a few others) allow criminal offenders the opportunity to waive their rights to trial by jury if it is not a case involves the death penalty.
Reasons:
Why one would vote for:
* The court systems are tied up and this would free some of that.
* These trial by jury cases are expensive because they are time consuming.
* Some cases involve very emotional subjects such as child molestation may be treated "unfairly" due to the emotion of the jury. The theory is that the judge can put aside their emotions and look purely at the legal implications of the infraction. (Thats why someone who molested a child would probably be smarter to decide to be tried without a jury)
Why one would vote against:
* Voting for it would reduce democratic involvement.
* To ensure that emotion can be a determining factor. (if thats important to you)
* To keep a checks and balance type system for these cases (in a sense, but that goes back to democratic involvement)
After reading through most of that document I posted in the OP, I have decided to vote against it, too. Although all the other states already have such a ruling, most of them require the prosecutor's acceptance of the defendant's choice to waive the trial by jury. I feel, without such a check, this law might be used ... "unwisely".
Why are you people voting against? You realize by doing so you are limiting choice, correct? I'm blown away.
Isn't it better to have an option to do something than NOT have the option?
Juries can make some absolute stupid decisions especially when pointed out above the case is emotional. People are easily swayed by good lawyers.
I would at least like the OPTION if this were me going to trial. That is all this amendment is about!
I normally would vote for more choice but I feel like this is a smoke and mirrors choice. Juries can be terrible but honestly so can judges. We have a constitutional right to a trial by jury; I really see no benefit to a defendant in waiving that...you can't go in assuming your jury will be bad. But, if you're a minority in certain areas, I feel it might be safe to say your fate should not be left up to one person. And I could see coercion happening as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
