this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
64 points (95.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26533 readers
1180 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

American law outlines a series of protections for those accused of crimes but not yet convicted. (Like the 4th-6th amendments)

Does your country have any unique/novel protections of the rights of potentially innocent people accused but yet to be convicted?

If not are there any protections you think should be in place?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Here judges decide matters of law not fact.

Eeeeeeehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...judges decide fact all the time in civil cases, or in criminal bench trials.

[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

7th amendment applies to civil suits. Judges may when common law doesn't govern. But that's limited. And criminal defendants must consent to bench trial by not contesting any of the facts.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

7th amendment applies to civil suits.

In the Federal system it does. At the state level, a jury for a particular civil matter is not guaranteed. Judges regularly end up as the finders of fact in state civil cases.

criminal defendants must consent to bench trial

Not always. If the case is not serious enough, a jury trial is not guaranteed. This SCOTUS case found 6 months to be the cutoff for a serious enough crime.

by not contesting any of the facts

A bench trial where no one is contesting the facts can happen, in that case the defendant is probably contesting the constitutionality of the law, so therefore doesn't need any dispute any of the facts. But, as in the above link, a case may happen where either the defendant is not guaranteed a jury because the punishment falls below the threshold establsihed, or they waive the jury and the judge sits in as the finder of both law and fact.