|
No. There really aren't that many former prosecutors comparatively. In fact 2 judges I know we're opposing counsel on one of the last SCOTUS cases out of this state. Fun times. Also, this state contracts out a lot of PD work. So there are more prosecutors, but a lot of private defense counsel are doing pd work. Currently all 4 briefs I am writing have contract defense.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And I'm asking you to explain why you think we should get rid of juries. Why would elected judges be better than juries? Having served in an advisory role in one such country...i agree. It would certainly make my job easier but the cost would be way too high.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:
Trick is a loaded word and loaded with the wrong conotations. It would only be a trick if it was used to getting people who would be aquitted to plea without telling them that. It absolutely can be in some cases, though I've told many innocent people to try cases they plead to. In the context of guilty people who will be found guilty 99% of the time (this is different than guilty people who can win. Those are my favorite cases and theybshould go to trial unless the offer is really good.) which is what I am discussing, it is more like the system slips them 20 bux to save everyone, including themselves a few weeks of effort.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I said a high percentage of prosecutors as compared to defense attorneys, and I will bet that even in your state far more prosecutors become judges than defense attorneys do. It's possible that's the situation on your supreme court. DA offices are widely recognized as feeders to the political arena, full of ambitious young gunner* attorneys. PDs have, in the past, been more idealistic and public-service minded, usually winding up in private practice. *I hated law-school gunners.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yeah, creating mandatory minimums is hosed up, they're trying to catch people who try to loophole the system. They missed a few fish so they throw a wider net. Someone who would've had to do community service is now instead serving jail because they made the net so wide that everyone fits the bill and the only way to get out of it is to plea bargain. We have mandatory minimums because people got outraged about judges using discretion and decided it we should proscribe everything by law instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
nm posted:Good news, now you don't have to read the lawyer thread. Hooray! I beat the system! No but seriously, good luck out there. Don't put anyone innocent in jail please!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And I'm asking you to explain why you think we should get rid of juries. Why would elected judges be better than juries? Because judges are better at applying the law, as they have an education in it. (unless, as I now realize, they don't need one in the US, in which case you need to get on that as well I guess) And an inquisitorial system doesn't mean that judges and prosecutors are the same, or that presumption of innocence doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No. There really aren't that many former prosecutors comparatively. Okay, I don't have time or access to journals at the moment, but I'll demonstrate the facts on this soon. It is true in comparison to just defense attorneys, and it is strongly true in comparison to public defenders--especially if you count the hours spent in the position. And I'm counting people who are just trial lawyers doing some criminal law TheImmigrant posted:DA offices are widely recognized as feeders to the political arena, full of ambitious young gunner* attorneys. PDs have, in the past, been more idealistic and public-service minded, usually winding up in private practice. Yeah, that's part of why appointed DA is not a non-political position, and are subject to a lot of the same pressures as elected DAs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Ok. But please be sure to separate the data based on elected vs appointed jurisdictions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
nm posted:Remember that wrongful conviction are still a way bigger problem than a few cops not getting convicted. This is important, but it's worth keeping in mind that a lot of the problem people have with police is that the it doesn't take conviction to suffer severe consequences from the criminal justice system. Consequences which are typically more severe the poorer and lower status you are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Because judges are better at applying the law, as they have an education in it. (unless, as I now realize, they don't need one in the US, in which case you need to get on that as well I guess) Judges do apply law in a jury system. Juries are there to determine issues of fact, not law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Because judges are better at applying the law, as they have an education in it. (unless, as I now realize, they don't need one in the US, in which case you need to get on that as well I guess) Judges are still there to apply the law, juries are given specific instructions as to the specific question being asked of them. You don't need a legal training to review evidence and weigh it so long as the judge makes sure the legal principles are upheld. Most defendants in the US can pick a judge trial, why should they lose the right to trial by jury? What's to gain? quote:And an inquisitorial system doesn't mean that judges and prosecutors are the same, or that presumption of innocence doesn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Because judges are better at applying the law, as they have an education in it. (unless, as I now realize, they don't need one in the US, in which case you need to get on that as well I guess) A jury doesn't make legal decisions. They make factual decisions. We basically give them a series of questions (the "elements") and they answer yes or no. If they answer yes to all, guilty, other wise not guilty. For example (simplistically): Did x kill y? Did he mean to? Did he not act in self defense (this would be broken out to the elements of self-defense)? It is actually pretty simple and requires no legal knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
"Obdicut" posted:
Hmmmm... Someone should tell my boss that. Maybe then he will stop literally telling the mayor to go gently caress himself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
nm posted:A jury doesn't make legal decisions. They make factual decisions. We basically give them a series of questions (the "elements") and they answer yes or no. If they answer yes to all, guilty, other wise not guilty. Then why involve them at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Oh, also control for the fact fewer private defense counsel apply for judge because it's a paycut.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Then why involve them at all? To decide factual questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Then why involve them at all? To determine the answers to the questions. Are you be deliberately obtuse?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:To decide factual questions. Yes, but why leave that up to laypeople who can introduce nonsense like jury nullification or hung juries for whatever absurd reason they desire? That doesn't seem like justice at all. nm posted:To determine the answers to the questions. Are you be deliberately obtuse? I be not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Yes, but why leave that up to laypeople who can introduce nonsense like jury nullification or hung juries for whatever absurd reason they desire? That doesn't seem like justice at all. Because they're also less likely to have a tendency to torture suspects into signing confessions? And less likely to show a pattern of treating killings by police as acceptable, as long as they're done to a minority? (Well, we already have that one, but juries do provide an occasional check to it.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Yes, but why leave that up to laypeople who can introduce nonsense like jury nullification or hung juries for whatever absurd reason they desire? That doesn't seem like justice at all. You know how people will complain about prosecutors purging the jury pool of minorities or people who think cops are capable of lying? Imagine if they didn't need to do that, and the only person who decides whether you are guilty or innocent is a judge who make well be golfing buddies with the prosecutor. The purpose of a jury trial is to make it harder for railroad convictions to happen, because the prosecutor needs to be able to convince 12 (relatively random) people that you are in fact guilty of a crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Because they're also less likely to have a tendency to torture suspects into signing confessions? And less likely to show a pattern of treating killings by police as acceptable, as long as they're done to a minority? (Well, we already have that one, but juries do provide an occasional check to it.) Can you show proof that those types of abuse are less likely to occur when juries are involved?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Can you show proof that those types of abuse are less likely to occur when juries are involved? Can I show proof that juries of their peers are less likely to think its unimportant that a peer got killed by a cop? Do you really think I need to?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Can I show proof that juries of their peers are less likely to think its unimportant that a peer got killed by a cop? No, that's not what I asked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
I never thought anyone would actually disagree with the principle of a jury before now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Can you show proof that those types of abuse are less likely to occur when juries are involved? This situation just can't really occur: quote:The statistics would seem to bear him out. Japan is unique among democratic countries in that confessions are obtained from 95% of all people arrested, and that its courts convict 99.9% of all the suspects brought before them. Prosecutors are ashamed of being involved in an acquittal and fear that losing a case will destroy their careers. Judges get promotion for the speed with which they process their case-loads. And juries do not exist, though there is talk of introducing a watered-down system called saiban-in for open-and-shut cases. Apparently, members of the public are not to be trusted with cases that might involve special knowledge. Those will still be heard and ruled on—as are all cases in Japan today—by judges alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
nm posted:Trick is a loaded word and loaded with the wrong conotations. It would only be a trick if it was used to getting people who would be aquitted to plea without telling them that. It absolutely can be in some cases, though I've told many innocent people to try cases they plead to. Right, I understand the idea is to streamline the system, ideally the "99%" that are guilty will take a plea bargain instead of dragging it out in court. But doesn't it create pressure on not only the guilty but also the innocent to plea bargain if they're told they're not going to win the trial? I'm not just talking about high profile murder cases and poo poo, I'm talking about traffic and other minor offenses, public defenders have an incentive to get all of their clients to plea, even if they could win. I just think it's a hosed up approach, creating a situation where everyone, guilty or innocent, will by default want to take a lesser sentence. Even if they're innocent it sounds like a great way to get back to their life and not risk losing their job or risk going to prison for something they didn't do. The fact that the plea bargain is lesser than if they'd have gone to trial is what's really hosed up to me, you're trading convenience for sentencing? If it's so unimportant that you can trade convenience for a lesser sentence why is the punishment so harsh in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
So, just to make sure I wasn't talking out my rear end, I pulled the bios for our supreme cout. Chief Justice: former big law partner. (Commercial litigation and employment) Justice 1: circuit clerk, big law associate, US attorney, State DA ( he is also the most frustratingly pro defense member of the he bench and chairs the commission that hires prosecutors.) Justice 2: big law partner, civil litigation Justice 3: solo practice, criminal and civil Justice 4: partner. Commercial litigation, governor's counsel, city attorney (not same as a prosecutor) Justice 5: former FBI agent and federal prosecutor, but also one of only 2 minorities on the bench. Justice 6: city attorney and former NAACP regional president Justice 7: unspecified private practice. So we have 2 former prosecutors on our high court who cancel each other out anytime the decision isn't unanimous. The lower appellate court has two former prosecutors (if you include the guy who switched to private practice in 1981), the other of whom is the only African American on the bench (and was an appellate prosecutor anyway.) But they also have a former legal services attorney, and a law professor who supervised his schools criminal defense clinic. I'd do the state judges but there are a lot of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This situation just can't really occur: Also if you are a minority victim in japan your case doesn't count, and the Japanese have gommenesai (sp?) which allows a defendant to pay the victim money to drop the case for many offenses. And don't get me started on prison conditions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:No, that's not what I asked. So you agree that adversarial systems with juries are less likely to whitewash crimes against the powerless than jnquisitorial systems are?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This situation just can't really occur: fwiw I realize that the Japanese legal system is hosed up in all sorts of ways, by e.g. allowing excessive detention without access to a lawyer, coerced confessions, no genuine presumption of innocence by the judges, all that. I just don't see how that necessitates juries. Like, you don't need juries to fix any of the issues you brought up, such as making a judge's career dependent on their conviction rate. And juries would just introduce all sorts of additional biases by uninformed people, which may or may not agree with what you think is an "appropriate" verdict, but which doesn't further a consistent justice system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:So you agree that adversarial systems with juries are less likely to whitewash crimes against the powerless than jnquisitorial systems are? I've said no such thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People arguing without a hint of irony that we should judge individual people and events based on generalizations, statistics, and trends instead of examining the actual facts of the incident in a thread about racism is the best thing ever. No one is judging and convicting these people of the crime of "racism" in a court of law, dude. There is nothing wrong with people seeing something that is likely racist and saying "that's probably racist," even if they can't prove it; it's not like their statements are going to send the guy to prison. I find that this is something you and some other posters are repeatedly confused about. The worst case scenario if you call someone racist in a situation where they aren't is that you hurt their feelings (if it's at all uncertain, it's very doubtful someone would be fired for it, especially if it's someone like a police officer), while the worst case scenario if you just choose to ignore everything that isn't explicitly racist (which is effectively what you're arguing for!*) is that you are literally helping to perpetuate systemic racism. With respect to serious societal issues like racism (and other forms of bigotry) - issues that we know to exist and be widespread - the benefit to actively seeking to condemn such actions greatly outweighs whatever harm might be caused by doing so. Again, people aren't sending anyone to prison when they say "that guy is racist." That being said, I find that situations where people are wrongfully widely accused of being racist are extremely rare. I know you think you're making some hardcore zinger with posts like this, but it just makes you look silly. * I want to make it really clear that this is the effect of what you and others with similar views are arguing for. If you can never address individual racist acts that can't be 100% proved (which in the modern world represents a very large portion of overall racism), you're basically just saying "welp, nothing that can be done! we certainly don't want to risk offending someone that wasn't a legitimate racist!" And just to repeat this again (and avoid a potential pointless "rebuttal"), when I say "address individual racist acts" I am not referring to sending people to prison for doing racist things; I'm referring to societal censure. edit: ActusRhesus posted:I would probably be a lot "nicer" if I weren't constantly dog piled on. I actually do have an interest in helping people understand things without being lovely, hence the creation of the ask/tell. But saying *i* am mean and ignoring the mountains of poo poo hurled at me is disingenuous at best. Especially when it's not just me, people here do it to blarzgh too. Unless it happened at some point in the distant past of this thread that I missed, most posters never dogpiled on you for no reason (though there have been a couple posters that did seem to kind of irrationally focus on you). I'm not exaggerating when I say that every single post I've seen you make (that again wasn't the result of people demanding that you admit something is wrong and can be improved) has been along the lines of condescending one-liners - often snidely referring to how the hive mind keeps probating you or whatever. Such posts are not useful and are likely the reason why you keep getting probated. It isn't hard to avoid this; if you criticize people while acknowledging their concerns and giving your opinion on how to address them, I can assure you that the reaction would be more pleasant. Like I mentioned in the post I made, what one chooses to talk about reflects upon where their opinions lie. Even if you think that some things are bad and should be changed, for whatever reason you felt it more important/desirable to do nothing but attempt to cut down other peoples' arguments without even attempting to sympathize with their perspective (and it's this latter part that I think caused the most resentment and made people immediately assume you were defending the status quo). It's no different than someone popping into a thread about sexism and doing nothing but pointing out when feminists are using bad statistics; you would assume such a person was likely an MRA rear end in a top hat if all they did was attempt to cut down feminist arguments, right? Even if every argument they made was factually correct, you would still (hopefully) think they're an rear end in a top hat for spending 100% of their effort attempting to cut down arguments against sexism. Also, not all "tone arguments" are created equally. When people talk about tone arguments being a bad thing, they're generally referring to situations where someone has a legitimate reason to be really angry/upset and is being criticized by people who are in a position to benefit from the status quo in some way. It does not mean that you can just be a condescending rear end in a top hat without repercussions. Oh, and regarding the professor thing I was a little unclear; I wasn't saying that a law professor would be better equipped to assert their authority on this issue. I was more referring to the fact that the general topic doesn't require such a high level of knowledge and expertise that it makes sense to put more faith in someone's words just because of their profession (as opposed to, say, chemistry or something where it would make sense to assume that the general consensus of PhDs in the field was correct/the best guess). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Aug 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:And juries would just introduce all sorts of additional biases by uninformed people, which may or may not agree with what you think is an "appropriate" verdict, but which doesn't further a consistent justice system. Where do you get the idea that just because a judge has knowledge of the law they aren't also biased? Remember, defendants can often choose a trial by judge. Do you actually have any evidence that removing the right to trial by jury would give more just or valued results?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:I've said no such thing. So you think adversarial systems are less likely to ignore crimes against the powerless? Where's your evidence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where do you get the idea that just because a judge has knowledge of the law they aren't also biased? I've already said that judges are as susceptible to biases as anyone else. The difference would be that a judge who is required to justify the verdict or sentence can be much more easily challenged on whether verdict or sentence are appropriate, and biases could at least be corrected more easily, even if they can not be eliminated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:I've already said that judges are as susceptible to biases as anyone else. The difference would be that a judge who is required to justify the verdict or sentence can be much more easily challenged on whether verdict or sentence are appropriate, and biases could at least be corrected more easily, even if they can not be eliminated. But that has nothing to do with inquisitorial systems and everything to do with you not understanding the distinction between factual and legal findings and the role of a jury vs the role of a judge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:But that has nothing to do with inquisitorial systems and everything to do with you not understanding the distinction between factual and legal findings and the role of a jury vs the role of a judge. Uh, that post wasn't about inquisitorial systems at all? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Uh, that post wasn't about inquisitorial systems at all? You're still confusing findings of fact with findings of law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
Useful Distraction posted:Uh, that post wasn't about inquisitorial systems at all? So you agree inquisitorial systems don't fix those issues?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 21:17
|
|