The guilt of a defendant?

Who makes the determination as to whether a person is guilty or not? Do you know how many people have been wrongly convicted, even after trial?

One of the reasons the colonists came to America from England was to escape the "tyranny" of King George. We created the right to a trial by jury because, as you may note in the Declaration of Independence:

"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world....For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury...For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences..."

The 6th Amendment states:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

This is especially necessary if the person's life or liberty is at stake - we should never take those things lightly, because we are all born with "certain unalienable rights." That is why we came here! :)

What if the confession was forced? What if the witnesses were all hired by someone to give false evidence? And who, without a trial judge, is going to decide what the penalty should be and has the right to impose it?

Basically, one of the most essential rquirements of a free society is that everybody, always, has the right to a properly conducted trial if the authorities accuse him or her of an offence. Otherwise how are we going to be protected from the abuses of an arbitrary government?

As soon as you can say "yes, but if..." our liberties are under threat.

The person has right to defend themselves before a jury. There is NEVER zero question. You are asking for a zero accountability system, where the state simply declares a person guilty. Who made that decision? How do we know that person is not biased?

Juries are there to protect the people from abuse of power. You simply want to give the state the power to act at will, with no right to defend yourself. That is abhorrent in any free society.

Because its his constitutional right.

And when are these witnesses supposed to come forward and actually testify to what they saw?? Without a trial, we don't actually know what these witnesses will testify to.

Besides, if we start drawing the line at when there is too much evidence...where do we draw that line? At what point is there enough evidence to skip the trial, and who makes that decision?

he can plead not guilty, but the confession will not be thrown out unless it was given under duress. it's called judicial process- the right to a trial.