A debate that has been going on for a long time is whether or not judges should have the last say when it comes to exactly what cases that they’re dealing with. It’s especially true when it comes to criminal cases. Obviously, many of these cases have a jury, but does the judge, ultimately, have the final say when it comes to trying to figure out exactly how they want to move forward with a case and what the trial should be?
There are a few reasons that this has been so hotly debated. The first is that there are some cases where a jury is going to have a difficult time when it comes to trying to determine the best outcome when it comes to dealing with a particular case, especially if it’s something that seems to hit close to home for some of them. This makes it even more important to have a good Defense attorney in Dallas. In some cases, you may not even be able to find a jury that can make a fair decision without allowing their emotions to come into play too much.
Of course, then there’s the flip side of that. The judge may also have some issues in that way. Even though they’ve been trained to be as objective as they possibly can, sometimes, it just gets to a point where you really just can’t stop your emotions and you end up making a decision that is based on them. That all being said, that’s what the appeals process is for, and perhaps, if the judge had the last say in the initial case, going through the appeals process may be more fair and may give the defendant the fair trial that they need.
This has been debated lately because of a number of high profile cases that ended up going to a judge during the process that they were being taken care of. What do you think? Do you think that, if the judge disagrees with the jury, that they should have the last say? Or do you think that takes away from the entire process that we as a country are trying to promote?