Should People Who are Caught Red-Handed in a Crime with no Question of Guilt be afforded a Trial by Jury?
When there is absolutely no question of guilt/innocence, why should taxpayers foot a bill for a trial? BTW, I am contained by the U.S.A.
Best Answer:
Because without that right to a trial, the criminal could be convicted of a crime in a set up situation. It minimizes the risk of a person human being framed. By allowing a trial judged by its peers, it gives the justice system an opportunity to prevent someone from anyone incarcerated wrongly. Besides if the evidence is true, the system should work and the jury would convict the person.
The purpose of a trial is to determine whether there is a press of guilt/innocence...so no.
And have you utter trust in the police officer who arrested you? Do we have no cases of police officer who have been corrupted, or falsified evidence, or been involved within any kind of unethical behavior? Okay, to be UTTERLY clear, police officers, compared to the statistics for the standard public, have such a clean record it's silly to even compare them most of the time (bless them and what they do), but most police officer would be the first to admit that they would not give up their right to a trial on the say-so of a police officer. They general respect the system of even-handedness we have and no one should give up that right. Why should we reimburse for it? There but for the grace of wise choices, go I.
Because they are entitled to a trial under the US Constitution. In a situation like the one you outline, the trial is a formality so that the accuse can not come back and say his or her rights were violated--and obtain off on a technicality.
