[ArmstedFragg]

But this does not apply to criminals, does it?

Actually, it does. It stems from the belief that the people, in the form of a jury, should be the triers of fact, and the judges should stick to interpreting the law. When you have a case where there's no jury trial, the judge ends up filling both roles but the appeals process remains unchanged. This is true for both civil and criminal cases. Frankly, I'm not sure there's a better way of doing it.

[RobbyS]

Maybe a jury would have been more resistant, although I doubt it. As you know there has been a continuous professionalizing of the legal process, with juries first being denied their historical role as interpreters of law as well as fact, then the replacement of laymen by lawyers on the bench, and no the progressive elimination of juries as a factor in civil trials. Even where juries are allowed, the most competent persons are culled from the pool.

[eccentric]

But this does not apply to criminals, does it?

Actually, it does. It stems from the belief that the people, in the form of a jury, should be the triers of fact, and the judges should stick to interpreting the law. When you have a case where there's no jury trial, the judge ends up filling both roles but the appeals process remains unchanged. This is true for both civil and criminal cases. Frankly, I'm not sure there's a better way of doing it.

Which is probably why Brian Nichols shot people in the Atlanta courthouse. The first jury was hung. The 2nd trial was going against him and he knew he would never have a chance once the verdict came back. The logic is then, "If you're gonna do the time, you might as well do the crime."