1. In the United States, judges and juries sit passively while attorneys have the main responsibility for conducting the trial and presenting the evidence. In most European and South American countries, which use the inquisitorial method, the judges and jurors sit together actively and conduct the trial in an effort to seek the truth while the attorneys take a passive role. What method does a better job of getting at the truth and serving justice?2. In recent years, dozens of convicted murderers on death row were freed at the last minute because DNA evidence proved that they had not committed the crime. Does this prove that justice does work in the American criminal justice system, or is it a sign of pathology in the way criminal trials are conducted in the first place?3. In the United States, the length of a prison sentence cannot be appealed if it is within the range prescribed by law. That is not the case in many countries, such as the United Kingdom, where convicted persons may appeal the length of their sentence if they believe it to be unjust. Would it be a good idea if convicted felons in this country could appeal the severity of their prison terms?4. Studies show that the recidivism rate is about the same whether prisoners are treated humanely during their time in prison or whether they are subjected to harsh treatment with few amenities. If so, wouldn’t it be a good idea to significantly cut prison budgets that allow expenditures for the few amenities of prison life? Or are there humane reasons for treating those behind bars with a modicum of decency and respect?
