well the the question was talking about the juries and um one of the things i thought about was on a lot of the drunk cases that they were having that especially for repeat offenders
 		that um maybe there should be stiffer penalties for those people who come back again and again
 		um so that um a judge i think would be the most appropriate person to uh to be able to sentence somebody since they do it over and over again every day
 	
 	
 		right i i kind of agree with that because i think in some cases uh the jury may not even have the information about other crimes the person has committed
 	
 	
 		right
 	
 	
 		uh i i think that in some cases that's considered to prejudice the current case
 	
 	
 		right
 	
 	
 		so a a judge you're right should have the whole dossier of the criminal there and if they're judged guilty would probably be in a better prison position to give an appropriate uh sentencing
 	
 	
 		
 
 		um-hum
 		yeah see i agree with you um
 		one thing i heard was this where they have instead of going to the regular court they have a a mock court i mean it's supposed to be all legal and everything uh you go and you present your case the other side presents their case and you're done with it
 		it's almost like the Night Court we see on TV um and um but it's not that we have uh such it didn't backlog or all of the uh the cases that are uh all ready pending
 	
 	
 		um-hum
 	
 	
 		um so i that was one thing i thought about that would be really neat if we could do it that way
 	
 	
 		in other words not not there would be some types of crimes for which you're not guaranteed a jury trial
 	
 	
 		yes yes Now
 	
 	
 		i i i don't there's there's a point on which we don't agree i would tend myself to say that we should continue to guarantee a jury trial for criminal cases anytime a anytime a
 	
 	
 		um-hum
 	
 	
 		one of the parties wants one and i usually it's the defendant i guess that wants to have the jury hear the case
 	
 	
 		um-hum
 		sure
 	
 	
 		so i'm i'm not out for  streamlining things to the point where we uh take that you know that would require a change in the Bill of Rights i believe and so
 	
 	
 		oh yes and and i wasn't i didn't mean that  i i didn't mean that no because i mean gee whiz if i was uh uh didn't have that right you know not to have a jury that oh yes i would feel um
 	
 	
 		oh oh okay
 	
 	
 		you're right that my civil rights had been violated but i meant for some when both parties agreed that yes we're going to have a judge here we're not going to have a jury you know let's get it over with sort of like car accidents you know
 	
 	
 		right well i think that's all ready possible i think that you can waive the right to a jury trial uh
 	
 	
 		yeah
 		right right
 	
 	
 		yeah so i agree that that should be encouraged you know people should know that that's an option just in case they feel they have to have a jury trial but i think most lawyers do a pretty good job of making that evident to
 	
 	
 		um-hum
 	
 	
 		to clients unless they feel they can you know tweak a jury into  perhaps
 	
 	
 		right giving a different sentence
 	
 	
 		giving a different sentence or possibly if it's a civil case giving higher uh
 		you know awards of money or something since usually the lawyers get a percentage of the the award
 	
 	
 		um-hum
 		the take right right
 	
 	
 		yeah and i suspect it in cases like i guess we were supposed to be doing criminals though rather than civil is that right
 	
 	
 		well i i it we're at liberty to to talk and and meander as long as it's all on the same theme um-hum
 	
 	
 		yeah well uh um in the case of civil civil uh things i think maybe the
 		the use of the jury is very often to the lawyer's advantage and i think that may be where jury
 		use is overdone you know i mean there are cases where they could be settled maybe out of court a little more efficiently but the lawyers are really
 	
 	
 		right right
 	
 	
 		uh it's to their advantage to play to as big an audience as possible so uh i was wondering too if they were thinking about the judge making awards in civil cases
 	
 	
 		um-hum
 		uh-huh
 	
 	
 		not just sentencing in in a criminal cases uh
 	
 	
 		uh-huh
 	
 	
 		i'm not so sure i'm in favor of that but i am in favor of it for criminal cases so there's a difference of my view there for those two
 	
 	
 		right right
 		yeah but well you can tell i haven't been in too many juries judges chambers or anything like that  and well i was called once when i was nineteen and um
 	
 	
 		have you ever had to serve jury duty
 		uh-huh
 	
 	
 		but i was doing so many other things that they took took pity on me and i was doing school and things like that they they let me out and i've never had to it since and that was almost twenty years ago
 	
 	
 		uh-huh
 		uh-huh it it isn't sort of amazed me they first caught up with me for the first time in uh that would have been about uh twenty years too um uh just last year and
 	
 	
 		
 
 		uh-huh
 	
 	
 		uh the case i heard was a criminal case and it seemed it really trivial it involved two bicycles we didn't do the sentencing the judge did
 	
 	
 		um-hum
 		huh
 	
 	
 		so
 	
 	
 		how interesting
 	
 	
 		we'd we uh rendered a verdict and then the judge was the one to do the sentencing
 	
 	
 		uh-huh uh-huh
 	
 	
 		and that was here in Wisconsin
 		so i i don't know if that varies from state to state or if it varies