The point is, if the judge had the OBLIGATION to take a “just the facts, Ma’am” attitude and overrule on the factual basis, as apparently they do have the obligation to in Denmark, then there would be a lot of people walking around who we all “know” (circumstantially, anyway) are absolutely guilty.

I don’t care one way or the other about the Peterson case: that’s an example, not the issue. The issue is that in Denmark the judges evidently have no choice, and are obliged to more or less disregard the trial presentation, (which would incidentally put all of our famous and high-priced “performer-lawyers” out of business) and pay attention only to what is proven. If the jury gets snowed by circumstantial evidence and great presentation, too bad: the judge will not be so snowed, and will - and is apparently obligated to - overrule.

So why bother with trials at all? Just go straight into chambers and have a meeting, let the judge decide. Peterson, OJ Simpson, these could have been disposed of in a couple of hours, instead of weeks and weeks. “Got any proof? No - just circumstances? Okay, he walks - get out. Thanks for coming,” says the judge, and it’s resolved.

I’ve made it absurd, but that’s essentially what we’re hearing. Interesting system.

I think that in cases such as Peterson’s, as well as in other cases depending on circumstantial evidence, life in prison is the appropriate penalty — it even allows for Scott’s release, and some form of restitution, should Lacey show up one of these days.

I’m not holding my breath, though — circumstantial evidence may not be proof, but it can be a mighty powerful indicator!

Clearly if the power to casually toss jury verdicts is vested in judges, then a jury trial in Denmark is nothing more than a species of Kabuki theater, strictly for the entertainment of the masses. The real decision will be made behind closed doors.

Is the judge bound strictly by the evidence, or are his own feelings allowed into his equation? If we had that here, for example, would Scott Peterson’s judge be obliged to free him on the basis that the prosecution failed to even prove that a murder took place, let alone that he perpetrated it; or would the judge be allowed to join in the national consensus that “proof doesn’t matter, we all know he did it” that ultimately prevailed?

Judges can override verdicts here too, but generally there has to be a pretty specific and supportable reason. They can’t just do it because they feel like it, or because they personally disagree. I don’t know the process in Denmark, but it seems pretty casual.