Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
370 bytes added ,  22:30, October 7, 2021
a reportedly unpopular verdict in a trial for murder in 2019, the Parliament of Canada eliminated peremptory challenges in jury selection. This abrogates the full protection of a right to a jury trial, particularly in woke trials.
Line 26: Line 26:     
The lawyers for each side also get a chance to ask questions. If a juror gives an answer that the judge agrees shows a lack of impartiality, the juror can be dismissed "for cause." For example, a juror that says he is against the death penalty could not be an impartial juror in a death penalty case. Each lawyer is usually also allowed a certain limited number of "peremptory challenges." That is, the lawyer can ask for a juror to be dismissed without giving a reason.
 
The lawyers for each side also get a chance to ask questions. If a juror gives an answer that the judge agrees shows a lack of impartiality, the juror can be dismissed "for cause." For example, a juror that says he is against the death penalty could not be an impartial juror in a death penalty case. Each lawyer is usually also allowed a certain limited number of "peremptory challenges." That is, the lawyer can ask for a juror to be dismissed without giving a reason.
 +
 +
=== Canada ===
 +
 +
After a reportedly unpopular verdict in a trial for murder in 2019, the Parliament of Canada eliminated peremptory challenges in jury selection.  This abrogates the full protection of a right to a jury trial, particularly in [[woke trial]]s.  Some defendants have opted for a bench trial by a judge rather than a jury trial in Canada after this change.
    
==Juries are not used in all countries==
 
==Juries are not used in all countries==
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,936

edits

Navigation menu