Welcome to Gaia! ::

Over here you can't just sue someone. It's usually the state that sues someone for you. normal people can't just sue someone.

Also we don't have the whole jury system. We, have I think, 3 judges, on higher courts more and on small courts like traffic court one who makes the decision. I just can't see how a bunch of people who have absolutely no I idea about laws and such can find someone guilty or not guilty. And many times it does not even have anything to do with who is guilty or not but whose lawyer can do the best show.

So I'd say that I like our system the best. My granddad used to be a judge so I always kinda looked up to judges...

Oh and also what I like here is that people don't have to swear on the bible.

i'll just nail this post, and the one after it(this reply refers to the quoted post, and the one after it)
you don't live in the united states, i do.
you are saying your legal system is better, im saying there is a reason our legal system is outlined as it is in our contitution, its to prevent those "three judges" from being biased assholes that shaft the person on trial, or otherwise allow a guilty person to go free.
as for a jury, you don't need any legal understanding to be on a jury
you are there so that you, as a peer of the accused, can decide wether or not they did the crime based on the evidence you have been given, basicly, they are there for the point to be proven to, and they decide what is the truth. jury's don't have an agenda, judges can, and often do.

I do like the idea of pre-selected juries. However, cases like the Twinkie Defense and the McDonalds Hot Coffee case, that's a civil case, not a criminal case.

We all know the story of the Twinkie defense, right? Well, maybe not; it might be some of that legal apocrypha shared only by lawyers and their long-suffering families. So I'll sum up that the Twinkie defense was used by a man who committed a crime (I don't recall the actual one, but that's immaterial here); he contended that the junk food he ate put him out of whack and he wasn't to be held liable from his actions. And yes, he won.

We live in a litigious society. People sue for custody of dogs, drag people in front of a judge for telling lawyer jokes, and file class-action suits that result in warning labels such as, in the case of a Swedish brand of chainsaw, "Do not attempt to stop blade with hands or genitals." People see the legal system as a way to get free money with no work, and possibly garner some attention from the press. While the American court system prides itself on allowing all people to bring a grievance before the court, I think it goes too far too often these days. So I rather support the notion that we switch to the British system, in which the loser pays all the court costs, for both sides. For damn sure it would decrease the number of frivolous or fraudulent suits, and it would lighten the load of the judicial system considerably. I know there are flaws, but instead of outlining them for you, I want you to throw them at me when you tell me which system you prefer. So, Gaians, let's get it on!