[speaker001:] Why don't you go ahead and start.
[speaker002:] Okay. Well I think the court systems could stand some improvement. Uh, trial by jury is good but a lot of time i-, a lot of cases, uh, is circumstantial evidence that, that convicts a person, which I don't think is all the time good. Because sometimes it's hard to get all the facts and to prove a person innocent, I mean prove a person guilty if you don't really know or you don't really have an eyewitness. And how can you convict somebody on circumstantial evidence is beyond me. I don't know.
[speaker001:] So you think if, if trials were held by judges or experts, that they, they would tend not to, uh, admit, not to convict people on circumstantial evidence?
[speaker002:] I think so.
[speaker001:] [Throat clearing] You know, I, [throat clearing] I attended a trial in, uh, Germany when I was a student and, uh
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] that's the sort of system they have. The trials are held by a panel of three, uh, three or four judges who are, well, they're like lawyers I guess. They're experts in the law
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] and, uh, there, [throat clearing] there really isn't a jury and, uh, uh, they do the questioning also. The judges do the questioning and, uh
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] they, uh, [throat clearing] i-, I think it's a lot harder to get off on technicalities also because they, uh, uh, the judge is also sort of a jury, [sniffing] uh, but I'm not sure I like that [LAUGHTER]. I think I prefer the jury system myself.
[speaker002:] You think you prefer the jury? You think your chances are better?
[speaker001:] [Throat clearing] Uh, well, actually I think in most criminal cases it wouldn't make any difference whether it was a couple of judges or jury [throat clearing]. What, what I worry about is cases where it's the government against the individual. That's where you really need a jury of peers.
[speaker002:] Well, that's true.
[speaker001:] Because, uh, anytime th-, the government, uh, is the government against the individual you need som-, y-, you need the protection of ordinary citizens. I think that's really the only thing. I guess where I would like to see the system change is, uh, uh, there ought to be a, a well I guess I don't think that, uh, uh, juries need to decide sentencing all the time.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] I think maybe th-, a judge is a better judge of that or, uh,
[speaker002:] Well, s-, sometimes the sentencing is still, is not fair. I mean even if, well the jury, I guess they do decide that but, but, I'm like you, in a case like that, most of the time its, I don't know, maybe I'm [LAUGHTER] too, too, uh, uh, conservative when it comes to that. Th-, the sentencing is really light compared to what I think they should be in a lot of cases
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] you know, uh,
[speaker001:] [Throat clearing] Well if you drag twelve people into a courtroom, I trust them to make the right decision as to whether someone's guilty or innocent. That's usually a matter of who to believe and what facts to believe.
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] But people who d-, don't have day in and day out life long experience with what prison is really like and what the options are, to ask them to decide for one case, on one person, based on what they see, I think that is maybe, uh, a little bit naive.
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] In Texas here, people tend to get whipped up into a frenzy and slap long sentences on people.
[speaker002:] Uh-huh [very faint].
[speaker001:] Uh, it's kind of, uh, uh, a hanging jury atmosphere [throat clearing].
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] But in a lot of places, I think people bend over the other way, but I guess, I guess I like the system that they have in some places where the defendant gets to choose whether he's, goes before a jury for sentencing or whether the judge gets to choose it. Some, some cases in some jurisdictions, they can do that.
[speaker002:] Oh really?
[speaker001:] I kind of like that system. Yeah.
[speaker002:] Yeah. That's, that's not a bad system. But I, I do think it needs to be shaken up a little bit.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] But, the thing is too, maybe they need more of a, I don't know, more of a expert types
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] to, to be on some of these jury cases because most time you just pick, you know, Joe Blow or whoever and a good citizen or whoever
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] an-, and call them in.
[speaker001:] And lawyers blow sand in their eyes.
[speaker002:] exactly.
[speaker001:] I would like to see most civil cases tried before a panel of experts instead of ordinary juries.
[speaker002:] Right, exactly.
[speaker001:] Insurance cases and things like that.
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] Where [throat clearing], and, uh, there would be more honest settlements instead of this, uh, tugging of people's heart strings and, uh
[speaker002:] Uh-huh.
[speaker001:] making them cry and feel like they're doing somebody good by giving them
[speaker002:] Put-, putting on a act or whatever. *slash error should be ^2
[speaker001:] or giving them two million dollars to make up for the pain and suffering [sniffing].
[speaker002:] Uh-huh [LAUGHTER]. Exactly [LAUGHTER], exactly.
[speaker001:] So. In, I think, i-, in criminal trials you need the jury as a defense against the government but,