I get your point and my point was that most of the bad can be eliminated by having a single suit, well trained judges, who decide on jail times and monetary payments to make those who suffered whole not in principle or for punitive reasons but to truly look at the damage done and a commensurate financial payment. All the existing problems of juries will be eliminated and the existence of frivolous law suits as well. Judges can throw out law suits that are frivolous right away. Individuals can be sent to prison, corporations can be assessed financial damages and regulatory licenses revoked or removed. If judges were better trained and peoples' lives did not hinge on totally untrained jurors how is that not immediately improving the legal system and removing all the bad that comes with the current system? The criticism of erroneous judgement by single judgement can be countered by allowing appeals in principle.
Again, you should stick with what you know. Civil cases have a completely different standard that the trier of fact, whether a judge or jury, uses to weigh evidence than do criminal cases.
Further, “Reckless” and other words that have legal significance mean one thing in a criminal case and possibly a different thing in a civil case. Next, there are different evidentiary rules applicable to criminal cases vs civil cases. It is not possible to combine the two as the issues will overlap.
You have no idea about how “judges are trained”. There is zero chance a judge could be adept at the width and breadth of all our laws. Lawyers become specialized in one, possibly two, and I’ve even seen one have a specialty certificate in 3 areas of civil law. Yet, you expect judges to somehow be a specialist in EVERY area of law, both civil AND criminal law. Impossible.
Regarding judges “fixing” the problems you perceive juries have, you are clueless. I’ve seen Republican waves take out Democratic judges en mass and more recently Democratic waves take out Republican judges en mass. (For example, take a look at the incoming new judges in Harris Country Texas where Houston is located). Risk changes at that point. It is better(from a fairness standpoint) to have a cross section of the community judging the facts as the political leaning of the judge will have already affect the litigation and what can be presented to the jury.
Trust me, as you sound like a libertarian or Republican, you would much rather have a jury in Harris County if you were sued now. Your odds are much better that you can convince 3 jurors to vote for you if you are a business and getting sued in district ct than the new judges coming in. If 3 jurors out of 12 “vote” in your favor, the Plaintiff loses. Not so with a Democratic judge making the legal AND factual findings.
Why continue to argueabout something you are clearly ignorant of? Do you just enjoy spewing inaccuracies? Just stop.