Well, Manfred did receive one penalty. He did win the case though.Noxshadow said:Good article, but there's one minor nitpick I have.
Pheonix doesn't use any magic or spiritual stuff at all. It's all Maya and Pearl.
I can defiantly see how some prosecutors are held in higher regard than Judges. I'm playing the first game (Ace Attorney) and the prosecutor is Baron von Karma, the man who, in his fifty year career has not only never lost a case, but never received a fine or penalty. He outright bosses the judge around; "You have one job in this court, and that is to bang you gavel and say 'Guilty'."
I don't know, I thought Edgeworth cut down on the superciliousness later on. Yeah, he's still supercilious, but he's not as supercilious, and being that way is part of the character's charm...Ace Attorney Investigations wouldn't have been as entertaining without his constant snarking.Despite ultimately coming to realize that the truth is more important than convictions, Edgeworth remains as proud and supercilious as ever. The prosecutors of Ace Attorney, virtually without exception, are portrayed as unscrupulous egomaniacs.
OBJECTION! At least one game is also on the Wii!Goremocker said:Well...that's just great, now i want Phoenix Wright, And I don't even have a DS.
Objection!JonnWood said:OBJECTION! At least one game is also on the Wii!Goremocker said:Well...that's just great, now i want Phoenix Wright, And I don't even have a DS.
Really? I think I prefer that to "the majority vote must include at least one professional and one lay judge".toriver said:OBJECTION!VondeVon said:Well at least one entrenched judge must change their perspective or the fresh lay-judges won't mean anything! :SFintan Monaghan said:3 professional judges and 6 lay-judges. ...it is hoped these lay-judges will bring fresh perspectives and won't be so entrenched in the status quo.
(Just had to do it... )
It's actually the other way around. If the majority of the lay judges find the defendant not guilty, the acquittal stands. One professional judge has to agree to a guilty verdict in order for it to stand.
Freudian slip.toriver said:EDIT: The bolded word... is that misspelling intentional?
Yes. Each jury trial consists of 3 professional judges and 6 "lay judges", or citizen jurors. They essentially work together to determine a verdict. If the majority of the lay judges agree to a "not guilty" verdict, it goes through regardless of the decision of the professional judges. If the majority agrees to a "guilty" verdict, at least one professional judge has to agree. But in the current judicial culture in Japan, that shouldn't be difficult at all.VondeVon said:Really? I think I prefer that to "the majority vote must include at least one professional and one lay judge".
...Wait, I've been assuming the lay judges are the young new ones.. they are, aren't they?
"Grass is always greener on my side of the fence?", to mutilate the saying. I'd rather have 12 of my peers have to all agree that I'm guilty, then one guy dispensing justice. Also, once you enter the appeals process, the appelate courts are jury-less, with anywhere from 3 to 9 judges presiding anyway.Hardcore_gamer said:This.Ravek said:Typical how the author suggests that the best way to fix it is a jury system, which is probably the single worst idea in American court proceedings.
Iceland (my homeland) doesn't have a Jury system. Instead their are a number of judges who decide if or not the person on trial is guilty or not.
I have never understood why anyone would want to allow a bunch of random people who know nothing about the law (besides basic shit that everybody knows) be the deciding factor in tough criminal cases. If the person judging me is biased, then I would much rather get screwed by a biased judge who knows shit instead of some wanker who lives around the corner.