5 ms·

It could indicate that judges are overeager to convict, or it could indicate that prosecutors are unwilling to try someone they aren't really damn sure of. Or a

by philh 11y ago

It could indicate that judges are overeager to convict, or it could indicate that prosecutors are unwilling to try someone they aren't really damn sure of. Or a combination of the two, or probably a bunch of other reasons.

Tomte 11y ago
I don't know about the US, but in Germany it is definitely the "damn sure" case for the overwhelming number of all trials.
whybroke 11y ago
Note that blind belief in the latter causes the former to happen: almost everyone in the courtroom including the jury (most criminal trials are jury trials) assumes the defendant is guilty otherwise he wouldn't be in court. The notion of assumed innocent until proven guilty does not actually exist in practice. Additionally, many prosecutors, police and people in the criminal justice system believe that, even if the defendant is ambiguously guilty of the crime they are on trail for currently, they are certainly guilty of other crimes they are not currently on trial for. Thus shading information to get a conviction in an ambiguous case is sometimes viewed as a public service. Interestingly this part of problem is not the result of malice or even ambitious DAs.
cubano 11y ago
> It could indicate that judges are overeager to convict Judges don't convict, juries do. Just thought I'd clear that up.
- jellicle 11y ago
  Most civil and criminal cases are adjudicated by a judge alone.
- dtech 11y ago
  Are all US (criminal) court cases jury cases? Must be noted that this is only true for the US and other common law states, a lot of countries do not have or have only very limited notions of juries.
  - whybroke 11y ago
    In the US, if either the prosecution or defendant want a jury then there is a jury trial. In practice this means almost all criminal trials are jury trials. As an added note, juries are perceived to be dull witted and easily deceived compared to a judge with years of experience. On the other hand, many judges are elected so they may worry about how their decisions will look to the public, the public generally hates judges who do not convict (because tv tells them everyone is guilty). Other judges can be political appointees with strong opinions. So each party in a case decides whether or not to have a jury based on these points. To a limited extent, attorneys can ask to change judges. Judges are embarrassed when they are "papered" this way so this provides pressure not too be absurdly biased. And finally, there are a few differences in laws and huge differences in both judges and jury around the US both in opinions and education level. Dare I say this is why patent cases all end up in East Texas.
    - LordKano 11y ago
      On the other hand, many judges are elected so they may worry about how their decisions will look to the public, the public generally hates judges who do not convict (because tv tells them everyone is guilty). I noticed this about 20 years ago. Campaign ads for judges usually focused on how "tough on crime" they were as opposed to how "fair and trustworthy" they were. I lost what little respect I had for the legal system when I watched a prosecutor argue that two convicted men should remain in prison and one should remain on death row despite newly discovered exculpatory DNA evidence and new evidence of police and jury misconduct because "The system" needed finality.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  In the US one may demand trial by jury, but one may also opt for trial by judge. http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/judge-versus-jury-trials.html http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/judge-versus-ju...
- pixl97 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_... >Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial.[1][2] They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001.[3] Also note judges don't have to accept plea bargains.
- ascagnel_ 11y ago
  Judges set the jury instructions, which define how the jury should interpret the evidence presented at trial. Much like "push" polls and leading questions, the instructions can be written in a way that all but guarantees a finding of innocence or guilt.
- philh 11y ago
  Yes, thanks. I should have said "courts".
- task_queue 11y ago
  This is assuming your case goes to trial. I'd assume 99% cases don't ever reach that stage. Plea bargains are also marketed as a way to save resources and keep the justice system from getting backed up. Most people take a plea bargain if their charges aren't dropped. If it came to that, a trial by judge versus a trial by jury might have a better outcome than relying on a group of laymen who just want to go home to decide your fate.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by philh 11y ago

Tomte 11y ago

I don't know about the US, but in Germany it is definitely the "damn sure" case for the overwhelming number of all trials.

whybroke 11y ago

Note that blind belief in the latter causes the former to happen: almost everyone in the courtroom including the jury (most criminal trials are jury trials) assumes the defendant is guilty otherwise he wouldn't be in court. The notion of assumed innocent until proven guilty does not actually exist in practice. Additionally, many prosecutors, police and people in the criminal justice system believe that, even if the defendant is ambiguously guilty of the crime they are on trail for currently, they are certainly guilty of other crimes they are not currently on trial for. Thus shading information to get a conviction in an ambiguous case is sometimes viewed as a public service. Interestingly this part of problem is not the result of malice or even ambitious DAs.

cubano 11y ago

> It could indicate that judges are overeager to convict Judges don't convict, juries do. Just thought I'd clear that up.

jellicle 11y ago
Most civil and criminal cases are adjudicated by a judge alone.
dtech 11y ago
Are all US (criminal) court cases jury cases? Must be noted that this is only true for the US and other common law states, a lot of countries do not have or have only very limited notions of juries.
- whybroke 11y ago
  In the US, if either the prosecution or defendant want a jury then there is a jury trial. In practice this means almost all criminal trials are jury trials. As an added note, juries are perceived to be dull witted and easily deceived compared to a judge with years of experience. On the other hand, many judges are elected so they may worry about how their decisions will look to the public, the public generally hates judges who do not convict (because tv tells them everyone is guilty). Other judges can be political appointees with strong opinions. So each party in a case decides whether or not to have a jury based on these points. To a limited extent, attorneys can ask to change judges. Judges are embarrassed when they are "papered" this way so this provides pressure not too be absurdly biased. And finally, there are a few differences in laws and huge differences in both judges and jury around the US both in opinions and education level. Dare I say this is why patent cases all end up in East Texas.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    On the other hand, many judges are elected so they may worry about how their decisions will look to the public, the public generally hates judges who do not convict (because tv tells them everyone is guilty). I noticed this about 20 years ago. Campaign ads for judges usually focused on how "tough on crime" they were as opposed to how "fair and trustworthy" they were. I lost what little respect I had for the legal system when I watched a prosecutor argue that two convicted men should remain in prison and one should remain on death row despite newly discovered exculpatory DNA evidence and new evidence of police and jury misconduct because "The system" needed finality.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
In the US one may demand trial by jury, but one may also opt for trial by judge. http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/judge-versus-jury-trials.html http://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/judge-versus-ju...
pixl97 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plea_bargaining_in_the_United_... >Plea bargaining in the United States is very common; the vast majority of criminal cases in the United States are settled by plea bargain rather than by a jury trial.[1][2] They have also been increasing in frequency—they rose from 84% of federal cases in 1984 to 94% by 2001.[3] Also note judges don't have to accept plea bargains.
ascagnel_ 11y ago
Judges set the jury instructions, which define how the jury should interpret the evidence presented at trial. Much like "push" polls and leading questions, the instructions can be written in a way that all but guarantees a finding of innocence or guilt.
philh 11y ago
Yes, thanks. I should have said "courts".
task_queue 11y ago
This is assuming your case goes to trial. I'd assume 99% cases don't ever reach that stage. Plea bargains are also marketed as a way to save resources and keep the justice system from getting backed up. Most people take a plea bargain if their charges aren't dropped. If it came to that, a trial by judge versus a trial by jury might have a better outcome than relying on a group of laymen who just want to go home to decide your fate.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]