If I may offer that we look at driving accidents another way - assuming we get back control of “our” government.
If you can prove it was just an accident, the crime is much lower and you focus on restoring what property and injury you can if you were at fault, with debts negotiated (which we don’t have precedent for that I’m aware of) if you weren’t responsible enough to have assets or insurance in place to restore any damages you incur while driving, and where solid precedent is set on determination of that (which we already have).
If someone is found to be “negligent” - habitual inattentiveness with inattentiveness being causal, drunk, stoned, excessively drowsy/asleep, etc - additional punitive damages may be added by the jury in accordance with the severity of the damages incurred.
This is what I believe is meant by “judge righteously, for as you judge, you will be judged”. i.e. It was meant, within a court or tribunal, and with precedence considered. (Matthew 7:2, Luke 6:37)
“But make peace with your neighbor wherever possible, lest they drag you before a magistrate (judge)” (Luke 12:58)
Can’t have any of this under statutory law without right to a trial by jury.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
($20 being about $600-$250,000 now, depending whether you go pure spot price, or certificate-suppressed spot price of $30*400 per oz)
If I may offer that we look at driving accidents another way - assuming we get back control of “our” government.
If you can prove it was just an accident, the crime is much lower and you focus on restoring what property and injury you can if you were at fault, with debts negotiated (which we don’t have precedent for that I’m aware of) if you weren’t responsible enough to have assets or insurance in place to restore any damages you incur while driving, and where solid precedent is set on determination of that (which we already have).
If someone is found to be “negligent” - habitual inattentiveness with inattentiveness being causal, drunk, stoned, excessively drowsy/asleep, etc - additional punitive damages may be added by the jury in accordance with the severity of the damages incurred.
This is what I believe is meant by “judge righteously, for as you judge, you will be judged”. i.e. It was meant, within a court or tribunal, and with precedence considered. (Matthew 7:2, Luke 6:37)
“But make peace with your neighbor wherever possible, lest they drag you before a magistrate (judge)” (Luke 12:58)
Can’t have any of this under statutory law without right to a trial by jury.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
($20 being about $600-$250,000 now, depending whether you go pure spot price, or certificate-suppressed spot price of $30*400 per oz)
If I may offer that we look at driving accidents another way - assuming we get back control of “our” government.
If you can prove it was just an accident, the crime is much lower and you focus on restoring what property and injury you can if you were at fault, with debts negotiated (which we don’t have precedent for that I’m aware of) if you weren’t responsible enough to have assets or insurance in place to restore any damages you incur while driving, and where solid precedent is set on determination of that (which we already have).
If someone is found to be “negligent” - habitual inattentiveness with inattentiveness being causal, drunk, stoned, excessively drowsy/asleep, etc - additional punitive damages may be added by the jury in accordance with the severity of the damages incurred.
This is what I believe is meant by “judge righteously, for as you judge, you will be judged”. i.e. It was meant, within a court or tribunal, and with precedence considered. (Matthew 7:2, Luke 6:37)
“But make peace with your neighbor wherever possible, lest they drag you before a magistrate (judge)” (Luke 12:58)
Can’t have any of this under statutory law without right to a trial by jury (of peers!).