[esbranson]

> Citation needed.

It is hard to prove a negative or prove something has not happened. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader.

> American style juries which are seen in a very bad light over here

That neither supports nor refutes my argument that Austrians have no clue about Austrian style juries.

> Personally I would much rather have to deal with an Austrian court than an American one.

I would much rather deal with an American court with Austrian judges.

> Why would you mix things together that do not go together?

Because I possess free will. And I am capable of performing thought experiments.

[the_mitsuhiko]

> That neither supports nor refutes my argument that Austrian's have no clue about Austrian style juries.

It's very hard to refute that claim because you did not provide any sources for yours either. I would not know how to judge how Austrians see courts besides my limited exposure to the few law related classes I took and observing one of our most popular judges for a day and that obviously is personal bias.

> I would much rather deal with an American court with Austrian judges.

I can only assume Austrian courts did you something wrong or a person you know. Austrian courts see so little public exposure that you literally have to pick individual cases together by force to get a (skewed) view of the world. For the most part court cases in Austria are ridiculously boring.

[esbranson]

Well its not the courts themselves but the law which forms them. But the differences are fast becoming only theoretical.

Now, mind you, Continental judiciaries have a superior administrative tribunal system which is a recognized part of their judiciary. The United Kingdom has even recently adopted this approach. It is only the United States AFAIK that continues to insist that some judges are not part of the judiciary--which is an obvious falacy. The judiciary adjudicates--that is its purpose. We call them variously as "administrative law judges" (ALJs), "traffic commissioners" and "magistrates", etc. America essentially has two judiciaries--one independent of the executive, the other not independent. It's retarded. Its unconstitutional.

And apparently Austria uses what are, in effect, Anglo-American juries. They are selected at random from the electorate. They decide questions of fact. I don't see the lack of separation between "trier of fact" and "trier of law" as obviously better or worse.

And, as people are pointing out, there are inroads being made for a form of stare decisis such as Art. 177 EEC. So there is progress on all fronts IMO.

[the_mitsuhiko]

> And apparently Austria uses what are, in effect, Anglo-American juries. They are selected at random from the electorate. They decide questions of fact. I don't see the lack of separation between "trier of fact" and "trier of law" as obviously better or worse.

There are two versions of "juries" in Austria: Geschworenengerichte and Schoeffengerichte. Either only become relevant if you have committed a crime that could get you in prison for 5 years or more. Geschworene decide of guity and not guilty and decide the punishment, Schoeffen do it with the help of a judge. Not sure how that is related to the American system where the decision is made of "proven and not proven" or am I misunderstanding you?

[esbranson]

@the_mitsuhiko

> or am I misunderstanding you?

IDK I don't think you're misunderstanding me.. I was merely musing about this difference which you speak of--"Geschworene decide of guity and not guilty and decide the punishment, Schoeffen do it with the help of a judge". (Except that Anglo-American juries less often decide punishments--the common exception in the US being the death penalty.)