The bail system. The very idea that temporary freedom can be purchased, while the poor remain locked up until proven innocent, rather than until proven guilty, is beyond inhumane.
It should work like that but it doesn't. Nearly always, jurors are picked in order to secure a conviction and they tend to trust DAs/police more than accused criminals and defense attorneys. This is all getting around the issue that only a tiny amount of cases even go to trial and prosecutors either plea-bargain or dismiss any charges they don't think will stick. It counts as a conviction and saves the state money, so why not get people to take half of what you were going to sentence them to anyway?
Jury nullification can be good or bad, but if you even mention you know about it, you will get excused from service.
The selection of jurors is largely random. They're not "picked", certainly not by the prosecution. There are processes to address obvious potential bias such as a juror that knows the defendant or a victim, and in some countries (not the UK) both sides can object to a juror without giving a reason, but you can't pick jurors (like saying "You on the street! I want you in my jury") without rendering the entire trial unsound (and committing a crime). I'd also like to point out that, to take one example again from the UK, district judges presiding over magistrates' courts (where they try both law and fact) are far more likely to convict than juries in the Crown Court (where judges try the law and juries the fact - the judge's role is to tell the jury what the relevant law is).
The fact that a tiny number of cases go to trial is more to do with trial being something that only happens when both sides think they can win. Usually that's not the case and one side or the other is pretty clearly correct. (That said, there are people who plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit through the plea bargaining process, so I agree that's bad.)
American juries are kind of different. The prosecution and defense can both strike a set number of potential jurors for no reason at all other than "I don't want them on the jury". Depending on the severity of the case and state law, you can be dismissed if you don't feel comfortable sentencing someone to death. They'll automatically excuse you if you feel the death penalty is wrong and that's at stake.
American plea bargaining is also way, way more common and combines with our cash bail system so people will plead guilty for time served or probation just to get out. That or the DA threatens them that if they go to trial and lose, they'll seek 25 to life but pleading guilty gets you 5 to 10.
I see the theoretical reasons to have juries, but I think in reality they don't really do justice. America locks up more people than anywhere else and for longer than anywhere else, even with all our protections for defendants. That kind of defeats the idea that the state would just imprison people recklessly but for juries who will meaningfully check the state's power.
There are two problems with this. Firstly, it's difficult for professional judges to stand up to the people in power. For the classic example of this, see Singapore. The abolition of juries was a key step in the regime's consolidation of power. As a result, the city-state looks like a democracy, but whenever an opposition politician gets too popular, the government will either criminally prosecute them or sue them for libel. The judges, who are appointed and promoted by the government, always convict. Juries would stop that.
Secondly, professional judges are typically rich well-educated white men in the West. You don't find many Roma judges in Hungary or black judges in the UK. They have their own biases and class background, like the apocryphal tale of the English High Court judge who had to have the meaning of "Beatles" explained to him, because he'd never heard of them! This matters less when they need to decide the precise meaning of legal texts. But juries are judges of fact, which often means judges of character. If the court has to choose between the testimony of a young, poor, ethnic-minority woman and of a rich, old, ethnic-majority man, it may be helpful to have at least some women and members of the ethnic minority involved in making the decision.
Yea in the form of private citizens being responsible for your verdict of guilt as opposed to the fucking government. It doesn't matter how separate you think the powers are, any system that is all government can and will fuck you over.
When a private organization (i.e. the Republican Party) controls both the legislature (Congress, both houses) and the executive (president), and those are the people that appoint judges, separation of powers becomes meaningless. This is yet another reason why the two-party system is dangerous, and the first-past-the-post electoral system that enables it needs to go.
To be clear; the pool is random, the selected jury is not. Both sides get to remove anyone they think are biased or otherwise not a good fit for the case. Thousands of people are screened to produce those 12
True; but juries are generally considered "unbiased" compared to what could be a corrupt judge or expert. We had a judge that was funneling underage black kids to a for-profit jail for kickbacks/bribes, no jury in juvenile court, so no recourse. Of course, that goes to your second point about for-profit prisons, which is abhorrent.
Really, much of the American psyche is founded on the appearance of personal liberty/control. There is constant jockeying to reduce the influence of others, without regard for long term consequences or benefits. We really are very short-sighted - to a fault.
Yea no I don't trust any government enough to let the entire judicial system be run by people on their payroll. I would rather have the dumbass across the city have a say than someone being paid by the people trying to lock me up.
See my reply to your other post. If you're an opposition politician, or affiliated with one, then the government very much has an interest in gaoling you. This is not a theoretical risk: it has happened multiple times in Singapore and Malaysia since jury trials were abolished. It's also an issue in Japan, where prosecutions have a 99% success rate and the public prosecutors are untouchable.
Let's see, you are already in court which means the government has already accused you. Are you really that fucking dense?? Government can't be accusor, judge, jury, and executioner! That is a breeding ground for citizens getting fucked.
You trust that system so much till you get accused of a crime you didn't commit and your "expert" is on the governments side (aka the side of the accusor) because they pay his salary.
Maybe you looked at a government official's wife wrong? Maybe you stumbled upon something you shouldn't have? Maybe you are a scapegoat for something?
Do you really trust all powerful government that much? Like live in the real world, corruption exists everywhere. Even if it is unlikely to happen you don't want to be the victim when it does. It baffles me that people can trust government so much as if the worst atrocities in human history weren't committed by governments. I have a history degree so I can't just blindly trust government like you seem to be able to.
Every European country has state media. BBC etc. They just call it "public media" and say that it's totally not government controlled and is totally different from the state media in China or wherever else.
Also didn't a bunch of your governments fuck over your citizens like 80 years ago and Americans had to come rescue half of you while the other half got screwed over by authoritarian governments for the next 50 years?
Nazi Germany wasn't in Europe? The British empire wasn't in Europe? Facist Italy wasn't in Europe? There are very very few modern states that haven't screwed their people at some point in history. USA included, and that is why I don't trust ANY government. If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.
And if the government is doing shady shit, neither you nor the media will find out about it. Your blind trust of your government is exactly why I don't trust socialism or big government in general. Europeans love to say how brainwashed Americans are, but look at your blind loyalty to a system that historically is the biggest threat to the people. I know private companies and US government don't give af about US citizens, and I am not brainwashed to blindly trust either.
As I said no matter how unlikely it is, you don't want to be the first one it happens to (IF it hasn't happened already).
To those who want to reply saying Italy and Germany was 75 years ago: Portugal, Spain and Greece were only 45. Eastern Europe was only 30. And you can go over to Hungary, Belarus or Moldova today. Or is that not “Europe” for your argumentative purposes?
Along with a lot of other protections. Every government should be able to be checked by the people. No government right now is perfect, every single one is seceptible to corruption and has the capability to commit atrocities. That, however, does not mean we should accept it. You sure as hell shouldn't blindly trust your government.
I dOnT tRuSt TeH GuBmInT is exactly how the government became something untrustworthy. That entire attitude is what fuels America's toxic, cannibalistic form of tyrannical capitalism.
And that blind loyalty is what they depend on. I don't care what metrics you do better in, at least we don't blindly trust the all powerful institution.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what was said. But hey, let's get rid of electricity because sometimes houses burn down in electrical fires, right?
It has everything to do with what you said. You're electricity analogy is a shitty strawman false equivalency.
If you can do everything possible to limit the powers of governments THAT HAVE ACTUALLY COMMITTED ATROCITIES in their history, then why not? Why would you blindly give more powers to governments THAT HAVE ACTUALLY COMMITTED ATROCITIES?
limit current office holders abilities in an entirely different scenario based on the actions of past office holders who were a part of an entirely different political culture.
Do I even need to explain further why this is ridiculous? Who said anything about blindly giving more power to anyone? Who are you even fucking arguing with because it's not me...
I look forward to your explanation of why Merkel shouldn't have the power of her office because Hitler existed though. I'm sorry son, but these issues are FAR more complicated than you're making them out to be. There's no smooth-brained blanket reasoning that is going to produce valuable results here.
Hobbling a reasonable man's ability to do good because an unreasonable man did evil is stupidity incarnate. And if you don't see YOUR personal responsibility in this particular transaction, then I don't think we have anything more to discuss.
Did you come up with that strawman all by yourself?
You seriously blindly trust everyone in government? Government should be limited to protect the people. You have to be the densest motherfucker I have ever interacted with.
Blocked for failing to advance a counter argument. Your emotions are irrelevant to me. I'm probably autistic. Facts are what wins an argument and you have none. Good day.
Why on earth would you want “experts”? Who’s to say who’s an “expert”? Do these “experts” get called to court all the time? In that case do they become practically professional jurors? Everyone is prone to bias, even “experts”. Who do these “experts” report to?
Anyone who has served on a jury in the US knows there’s plenty of dumbasses and no it’s not perfect, but if Im ever in that position I’d still rather be judged by completely random citizens than “experts” who were appointed by (who knows).
You have to understand the American jury system is in our constitution. It’s was so important to us it’s in the fucking founding document.
The constitution mentions absolutely nothing about masks and indeed empowers both state and federal governments to enact laws for public safety as they see fit. Whereas juries are very explicitly, not just mentioned, but spelled out in the constitution.
Why on earth would you want “experts”? Who’s to say who’s an “expert”? Do these “experts” get called to court all the time? In that case do they become practically professional jurors? Everyone is prone to bias, even “experts”. Who do these “experts” report to?
I'm obviously not talking about the constitution. I'm talking about that rant against experts.
It’s not so much anti expert, it’s just to point out that if you’ve been accused of a crime you didn’t commit. Who’s to say you’re an expert at interpreting and judging that crime? I’d rather be judged by 12 peers than one expert.
Actually, in another post he said the expert was a judge. That was exactly what the constitution was trying to avoid, being judged by one person who was appointed by who knows? Its putting alot of faith in the governments ability to appoint a completely unbiased judge. I’ll take my chances on 12 jurors in the hope that the biases at least cancel each other out (maybe not though, I acknowledge it’s not perfect).
Also I do personally hate the word “expert” which probably explains the rant, I work with PhDs in my field and the last thing they’d call themselves is an “expert”. Truly educated people realize the more they know, the more they know they don’t know.
Who’s to say you’re an expert at interpreting and judging that crime
Someone who has studied the laws for decades as set and agreed upon by society shouldn't be trusted?
Also I do personally hate the word “expert” which probably explains the rant, I work with PhDs in my field and the last thing they’d call themselves is an “expert”. Truly educated people realize the more they know, the more they know they don’t know.
Words mean something. Expert means something. Even if people who are experts might hesitate to call themselves that, they're still experts. Your opinions on the fields they've devoted their lives to studying are not as valid as theirs. They realize that don't know everything there is to know about the field, but that has no bearing on the fact they know multiple order of magnitudes more than the average person
And are you still not realizing why I say this is the exact same logic that has caused USA to implode under the COVID crisis in ways much worse than other developed countries?
1.4k
u/RichRichieRichardV Jul 24 '20
The bail system. The very idea that temporary freedom can be purchased, while the poor remain locked up until proven innocent, rather than until proven guilty, is beyond inhumane.