3 ms·
> Other than saving money/time for some people Time and money are both limited resources, especially in the case of the Criminal Just system. That alone is an
by cloverich 11y ago
> Other than saving money/time for some people
Time and money are both limited resources, especially in the case of the Criminal Just system. That alone is an argument for its existence.
> the prosecutor is the one that gets to decide leniency in terms of punishment.
IANAL, but believe the judge is the one who decides (e.g. you could potentially plea out and not get the deal offered by the prosecutor). Moreover, if you don't like the bargain you can always roll the dice in the courtroom where you'll face the established punishment for your crime (rather than the reduced one being offered).
To be clear, I dont like the system as is either. But I think a speedy trial would probably be impossible without bargaining. Thus I think the only route to a solution (i.e. the one we should perhaps focus on) is: 1. Reduced penalties for various crimes 2. Drug legalization
- mikeash 11y agoThe limited nature of time and money for the criminal justice system is artificial scarcity. We choose not to fund them adequately, and make up for this by making unfair and unjust arrangements with the accused. The portion of government spending that goes toward courts is not terribly high. If we wanted to and needed to, we could increase it by a huge amount without greatly increasing tax burdens. There is no practical reason we can't give every single accused person a speedy trial. We just don't feel like putting in the effort.