4 ms·
Proper training alleviates these fallacies. I trust a judge much better than a jury of random people.
by antris 10y ago
Proper training alleviates these fallacies. I trust a judge much better than a jury of random people.
- yompers888 10y agoOn the other hand, the random jury doesn't have the same perverse incentives and web of relationships that support conviction.
- r00fus 10y agoWould you still trust that judge that was elected to office with lobbyist money?
- burkaman 10y agoI think electing judges might also be a uniquely American thing, and less than half the country does it. It's a much weirder practice than using juries. Obviously you can still say a judge was appointed by people elected with lobbyist money, but it's not that direct.
- lucb1e 10y agoMight be my lack of knowledge in the subject, but I've never heard of electing judges. Isn't it just a study and a background check or so, at least in western Europe?
- burkaman 10y agoNot only do some states have elections, but they have partisan elections, which is just obviously a dumb idea. I have no idea how it works in other countries, but in most US states judges are either elected by the legislature or appointed by the governor.
- antris 10y agoJudges are not elected in my country, so can't comment on that.