Is a court needed?

This is a lie, the courts do not deal with this. Judges are generally not experts in the field of forensic science and operational search activities.

No, it is not a lie. There are numerous cases that prove this true. And to put all the power into the hands of one person would make corruption almost guaranteed.
 
1) fight against corruption

2) independent criminal investigation

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

To not allow the defendant the right to defend themselves goes against the entire idea of justice. It becomes nothing more than a single man deciding the fates of others.
 
No, it is not a lie. There are numerous cases that prove this true. And to put all the power into the hands of one person would make corruption almost guaranteed.
It's a lie, I said why it's a lie

I didn’t say anything about giving power to one person, don’t fantasize.
 
"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

To not allow the defendant the right to defend themselves goes against the entire idea of justice. It becomes nothing more than a single man deciding the fates of others.
Lies. Justice should protect citizens from judicial fraudsters
 
This is a lie, the courts do not deal with this. Judges are generally not experts in the field of forensic science and operational search activities.
The judges rule on the admissibility of evidence and holds the prosecutors to evidentiary standards such as disclosure
Without this check on the prosecutors and the cops there would be no end to the abuses of power perpetrated by the cops and prosecutors.
 
We do not think about this question, but meanwhile it is not as stupid as it seems at first glance.

The crime is not revealed by the court, but by the prosecutor's office. If the event of a crime is established, then the prosecutor's office can itself sentence the criminal to punishment, without any trial, if the punishment is unambiguously prescribed in the law.
So the concept of proving guilt or innocence plays no part in your equation?
 
So the concept of proving guilt or innocence plays no part in your equation?
If the prosector says your guilty, your guilty. Sounds like tyranny to me. It’s a system that has existed for most of civilization. The monarch says you’re guilty so off to gallows you go. After all, the monarch is God’s representative and infallible.
 
Courts are essential to preserving democracy, and ensuring each of us our guaranteed liberties.

Even the most brutal dictatorships have courts, and even Bronze Age villages had trials for each case. I can't even fathom a society without courts of any kind, or judicial systems that would just let the prosecutor pop anyone in the head on their own discretion alone.

The best I can say about this is that it is good to reconsider our social conventions every once in a while, to make sure they still apply, but this one takes it to bizarre lengths. It's safe to say that yes, courts are still necessary.
 
Courts are essential to preserving democracy, and ensuring each of us our guaranteed liberties.

Even the most brutal dictatorships have courts, and even Bronze Age villages had trials for each case. I can't even fathom a society without courts of any kind, or judicial systems that would just let the prosecutor pop anyone in the head on their own discretion alone.

The best I can say about this is that it is good to reconsider our social conventions every once in a while, to make sure they still apply, but this one takes it to bizarre lengths. It's safe to say that yes, courts are still necessary.
Agreed. Our judicial system has many problems. However eliminating courts isn’t the answer.

Clearly the poor and minorities are often poorly represented and railroaded to prison. The rich and connected often receive favorable treatment.
 

Forum List

Back
Top