posted on Mar, 12 2013 @ 11:44 AM
Is is a good idea, yes, will it happen, no. Here is why. The effort of "win/lose" in a courtroom is set up on lies, deceit, manipulation, parsing,
word games, and the now famous world of only answering yes-no. This makes both sides playing a game of mental and psychological manipulation, not a
game about the truth. You can only speak to this if you've been in court, and you'll know what is like to be asked a question that cannot be
answered, with a preamble that was designed to be seen by the jury as fact and influence them more then the answer.
For example, "sir, you've been a long time user of drugs, in your opinion, were you impaired at the time of your arrest." You'll note the "long
time user of drugs" is tied to the question, by answering the question, the defendant has admitted to being a long time user of drugs to the jury,
this part sits in their mind more then his answer.
Consider, testifying in court is an art, a true art form, and few can do it well after they have been coached. Oddly enough, there is no class, no
education, not one minute time spent on teaching people about this prior to getting into court. If testifying is so important, so hard to do, so
integral to the scheme of law, why is there no classes in school devoted to it? The reason, the court counts of the fact that all people are ignorant
to the process.
In some places the judge may ask questions, but since he works for the same people as the lawyers, it is hard to find him objective. Were a jury made
up of ACTUAL peers, medical case with medicos, construction case with construction workers etc., and they were allowed to ask questions which would
illuminate the issue, we'd see true justice. Now, we just see ways to balance the bank accounts of those involved - yes the bank is involved in civil
and criminal matters (see the long history of maritime law in the US) and there is no such thing as justice in this rigged system.