There was a case while back in which the defendant admitted that he had technically violated the law he was being charged with. But the defense contended that the accusations made by the prosecutor and police were either not true or blatantly exaggerated. The question in this case wasnt about whether the defendant had violated the law, but about what actually happened. If the judge believed the defense, the man would get the minimum sentencemaybe not even that. But if the judge believed the account given by the prosecution, the sentence would be likely to be much longer. Because there was a dispute in the facts and because the defendant refused to accept the prosecutors plea bargain, a trial had to be held. Of course, this trial was not going to have a jury; that would have been completely pointless. The jurys only job is only to determine whether the law has been broken, and no one was in doubt that a jury would find that the law had indeed been broken. But there was such a discrepancy between the prosecutors version of events, and the defendants. The defendant said he did not really do anything that bad. The law he was being charged with carried a maximum penalty of up to 20 years. This is the type of situation that really should have involved a jury, to weigh the facts and try to determine what actually happened. Unfortunately, this is all too common. A jury trial only protects defendants who have not broken any law. If you break a law in the slightest way, even if it is just on a technicality, the protection of a jury trial becomes rendered redundant. There are so many countless laws that have been passed; people could be guilty of slight violations in all sorts of ways. We are talking about very slight violations of very serious laws. You might have noticed I didnt provide specific details about the case above. That was intentional. It is because this type of situation arises all the time in the justice system. This description could apply to all sorts of different cases. Should the facts of the case really be decided by one judge? I know the case could go on to Appeal, but you know a lot of times an Appeals court wont even look at a case. Not deeply. The defendant could get stuck with the judgment of the first judge. And Appeals can take a long time, so it might be many years until a sentence is commuted. The defendant might have only deserved 1 year, but it will not be 3 or 4 years until a higher Appeals judge makes a determining ruling. (total, including the time imprisoned before trial) Just one more example of how the justice system is not always fair.
