Talk:Tribunal

In some jurisdictions during civil trials a jury can return a verdict even if they are not unaminous.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.42.86.27 (talk • contribs)

Quite, and "tribunal" can refer to any judicial body before which one appears, including a single member. I appear in front of tribunals with only one member frequently. So, pretty unhelpful a definition and wrong on almost every count. What's right? Francis Davey 11:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article to try to give an accurate picture of what a tribunal is. I've deleted all the material about unanimity. Many courts also have more than one member sitting on them. I really don't see why any discussion of a rule of majority should appear here. Francis Davey 15:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

the issue is that the entire article is of poor quality. The concept of tribunal exists independantly of the specific instances mentioned in this article, and essentialy represents trial by a panel of judges, without a jury component. For instance, all international courts are and have been "tribunals" to the best of my knowledge. occasionaly they may be a single judge, but this is more properly "trial by judge". . . Tribunals have been used in ancient rome, israel, and in modern times by militaries all over the globe, as well as in international usage. 74.138.206.229 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)