"districk judge" calls for trial by "judge only!(?)

Question

1 of our districk judges wants to do away with jury trials,trial by judge only ? how would this work "fairly?>?

Answer 1

If you go to trial, you can request trial by jury or trial by the judge alone. This "district judge" can't change the Constitution that guarantees trial by your peers should you desire it.

There may be some clause in smaller courts that allows no jury  trial under special circumstances, but I've never heard of it.

Answer 2

Actually in the United Kingdom nearly all civil trials are by judge alone. Only a few matters, such as malicious prosecution and defamation generally require trial by jury. This makes civil trials shorter, cheaper and leads to more sensible decisions about quantum of damages. No problems of jury bias... no jurors skiving off jury service because they'd rather be at work... no hung juries. Judges are required to give their reasons for giving judgement, so if the judge was obviously biased or made a stupid mistake you can appeal it. (whereas you will never know if the jury decided your case by rolling dice.)

On the other hand judges are as a rule apolitical in the UK, and largely immune from political pressures, and therefore safer to entrust with trials alone.

Answer 3

there are currently trials without Juries, it can be done and has

Answer 4

It is unconstitutional.  The only trials that are held without a jury of your peers are juvenile trials as the supreme court has found that they are not given jury trials unless they are charged as adults, civil trials heard in small claims court, civil trials where both parties wave their right to a jury trial, criminal adult cases in which the defendant waves their right to a jury trial, and family court cases.  Other than these types of law, juries are always used because they are given a jury trial by the constitution.

However, if we were to eliminate the right to a jury trial, the way it would work is the judge would make a decision of guilt or innocence based off of the laws that apply to the charge and then if found guilty the judge would make a ruling as to the sentence the person would receive without the recommendation of the jury.  This actually works much better because of the fact that the judge has years of experience learning about the laws that apply.  If you are really curious about how this would work, call your courthouse and find out if you can sit in on a juvenille criminal case or a family court case so you can see how it would work.  Note: Many states have laws against sitting in on these types of trials without the permission of the defendant(s).

Answer 5

A judge cannot make that decision.  Only a defendant can elect to have a trial by judge rather than jury.

Answer 6

"Dipstick judge" is right on the money.

Answer 7

It wouldn't in many cases. This is a ploy to save money.