In the Federal system it does. At the state level, a jury for a particular civil matter is not guaranteed. Judges regularly end up as the finders of fact in state civil cases.
criminal defendants must consent to bench trial
Not always. If the case is not serious enough, a jury trial is not guaranteed. This SCOTUS case found 6 months to be the cutoff for a serious enough crime.
by not contesting any of the facts
A bench trial where no one is contesting the facts can happen, in that case the defendant is probably contesting the constitutionality of the law, so therefore doesn't need any dispute any of the facts. But, as in the above link, a case may happen where either the defendant is not guaranteed a jury because the punishment falls below the threshold establsihed, or they waive the jury and the judge sits in as the finder of both law and fact.
You may talk to police that way in America but any good lawyer will tell you not to because the strength of the fact that your silence can’t be used against you often will offend out weigh any defense you might argue.
And if you watch enough arraignments, it is just so painful to watch a defendant completely spill the beans even over a judge and lawyer telling them to shut up. So many people really don't seem to understand that they can't simply fast talk their way out of charges once the process starts, and everything they say is going to be recorded.
The legal rights come into play exactly when the police come into the picture.
I don’t know all your amendments, but there is a thing like your 5th. just stronger: The accused is free not to help the police in any way. He may say things or remain silent, he needs not to give them things, and they may not create any kind of disadvantage for him from that. Also the court must not interpret this against him. Also spouse and family are not required to help or testify.
All of these are included in the 5th (except for subpoena of non-spouse family, but as a practical matter prosecution has a hard time forcing an unwilling family member to testify in any useful way), and on top of it the Miranda warning requirement exists to inform people of the rights. A lot of people just have a really, really difficult time shutting their mouths even when told to.
During the American Civil War, Army officers were withdrawn from Coast Survey duty, never to return, while all but two Navy officers also were withdrawn from Coast Survey service for the duration of the war. Since most men of the Survey had Union sympathies, most stayed on with the Survey rather than resigning to serve the Confederate States of America; their work shifted in emphasis to support of the United States Navy and Union Army, and these Coast Surveyors are the professional ancestors of today's NOAA Corps. Those Coast Surveyors supporting the Union Army were given assimilated military rank while attached to a specific command, but those supporting the U.S. Navy operated as civilians and ran the risk of being executed as spies if captured by the Confederates while working in support of Union forces.
Jericho: A post apocalyptic show that isn't just mohawk bejeweled raiders roaming around. It is a show very much of the GWB era, with offbrand Blackwater as major villains and heavy Dick Cheney vibes when it comes to the larger plot.
Kings: A sort of retelling of David versus Goliath except set in the modern day. If you liked the weird esoteric spiritual stuff on the Battlestar Galactica reboot, you'll like this.
The Unit: A fictionalized adaptation of Delta Force missions, with at least early on heavy influence by the former Delta author of Inside Delta Force. Great early seasons. Later seasons become more Hollywood nonsense, you tolerance may vary, but season 1 and 2 have some gold.
The Wire: This was a huge show when it was on, but maybe zoomers don't know about it. This is the crime show for people who hate everything about modern "procedural" crime shows. It is nuanced, thoughtful, and engaging.
Columbo: Speaking of crime shows and procedurals, Columbo is both and neither. Columbo is entertaining and keeps you invested with its unique approach to murder mysteries. It really doesn't pretend to be a proper procedural, and you're best off thinking of Detective Columbo as a supernatural embodiment of karma and guilt rather than an actual member of a police force.
That opinion is based on junk science that was promoted by anti-skub lobbiests. In the last 20 years no credible research has duplicated the findings that skub is (under normal conditions) hazardous in tall buildings.
As memey as the whole theory is, I like to mention that George Lucas was influenced by a lot of classic scifi. He was almost certainly aware of the famous Foundation novels. In the second book, the comedy relief character turned out to be the secret villain leading the evil empire and who had mind control powers.
Of books I've finished, The Da Vinci Code. It's been a long time since I read it, so I can't recall specifics but I do remember the moment to moments of the plot being contrived and stupid, and the writing to be bland and simplistic.
The only reason I read it was I was stuck somewhere without a book and I found a copy of The Da Vinci code that had fallen behind a shelf. I figured it was super popular so there must be something to it as I slogged through.
A: they’re betting most people will accept it, and they’re right.
Yes. Remember when Netflix put a stop to password sharing and the internet went aflame with people declaring that Netflix had shot itself in the foot? Netflix subscriber counts went up.
The average person will put up with so much more of this nonsense than techie people will.
In the Federal system it does. At the state level, a jury for a particular civil matter is not guaranteed. Judges regularly end up as the finders of fact in state civil cases.
Not always. If the case is not serious enough, a jury trial is not guaranteed. This SCOTUS case found 6 months to be the cutoff for a serious enough crime.
A bench trial where no one is contesting the facts can happen, in that case the defendant is probably contesting the constitutionality of the law, so therefore doesn't need any dispute any of the facts. But, as in the above link, a case may happen where either the defendant is not guaranteed a jury because the punishment falls below the threshold establsihed, or they waive the jury and the judge sits in as the finder of both law and fact.