9 ms·

As a well traveled non-American, the US justice system truly boggles the mind. Elected judges, jury trials, vengeance-oriented punishments, complete lack of reh

As a well traveled non-American, the US justice system truly boggles the mind. Elected judges, jury trials, vengeance-oriented punishments, complete lack of rehabilitation or reintegration, medieval prison conditions... In Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised. In the USA, I'm simply aghast.

KindOne 8y ago
What country are you from?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kstenerud 8y ago
  Canada, although I've lived all over the world. Thus far, the best systems I've seen are in Japan, Norway, and Germany.
  - decacorn 8y ago
    watch the Staircase on Netflix. You will utterly lose complete faith in US justice system.
  - influx 8y ago
    Japan has a conviction rate of over 99%, most of which are secured on the back of a confession. https://californiainnocenceproject.org/2013/01/japan-concerned-over-false-confessions/ https://californiainnocenceproject.org/2013/01/japan-concern...
    - travmatt 8y ago
      I can’t tell if you’re critiquing the Japanese justice system, but US prosecutors abuse plea bargaining just as badly.
rectang 8y ago
As an American: same. It makes more sense when you consider that in many U.S. states, the criminal justice system is used as a political weapon. Felony disenfranchisement is an important means of keeping minority populations from the ballot box. If you don't like how minorities vote, targeted laws and selective policing, prosecution, and sentencing can help you suppress their votes. From the article: > he was confident that a jury would sympathize with his plight. Hoping for a sympathetic jury in California might not be a bad gamble, but for a man with a Hispanic name and appearance, the odds are not so good in Kansas.
- travmatt 8y ago
  Not just the states, the DEA and FBI are important legal weapons as well.
refurb 8y ago
Wait, you’re against jury trials?
- en4bz 8y ago
  Maybe he meant indictments? The US is one of the few places that has Grand Jury Indictments. Most regions leave that up to the prosecutor.
- kstenerud 8y ago
  Absolutely. With a professional judge (NOT an elected judge!), you're in the hands of someone with years of training in law and justice. With a jury, you've got 12 yahoos off the street who don't know anything about the law or the tricks lawyers play, let alone what their own rights and obligations are. That's why American criminal court cases are "battles" Compared to German proceedings, juries are only marginally better than trial by ordeal.
  - 394549 8y ago
    > Absolutely. With a professional judge (NOT an elected judge!), you're in the hands of someone with years of training in law and justice. With a jury, you've got 12 yahoos off the street who don't know anything about the law or the tricks lawyers play, let alone what their own rights and obligations are. It may reflect a difference in culture, but as an American, I feel juries are an important institutional check in a democratic society. Ultimately, the law is meant to serve the people, so the people should not just be subject to it, but they should also have an active role in its administration. I think that any deficit in jury quality should be addressed by improving the quality of the people the jurors are selected from, though increased legal education in the public schools. Perhaps the law should also be rendered in plainer language to make that easier. While there will always be legal specialists, I think it's important that the people themselves understand the law to a good degree.
  - Amezarak 8y ago
    In the US, you can waive your right to a jury trial. When someone has a jury trial, it's because they elected to exercise their right to do so. They could have chosen to have a bench trial with only a judge. The state actually prefers for people to have bench trials because jury trials are more complicated and expensive. Jury trials benefit defendants. If you think that your fellow citizens would sympathize with your plight, maybe even exercise jury nullification, you want a jury trial. If you think your case isn't likely to win anyone over, but that you can get off based on legal technicalities, you want a bench trial. Judges are not always elected - it depends on the jurisdiction and type of judge. This is a complicated issue, but having seen firsthand how far the legal interpretation of the law drifts (because of the insularity of the legal community) from the popular sentiment that drives legislation, I'm strongly for some judges being elected. On top of that, appointed legal "expert" judges often do not deserve the respect you're according them. "Years of training in law and justice", in my experience, has the tendency of engendering in people a belief that they are better, wiser, and more right than anyone else.
travmatt 8y ago
You’re missing one of the greatest abuses of the American justice system - plea bargaining.
openasocket 8y ago
It should be noted this case took place in Federal court, where judges are appointed, not elected. It should also be noted that you can waive the right to a jury trial and get a bench trial instead.

KindOne 8y ago

What country are you from?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kstenerud 8y ago
Canada, although I've lived all over the world. Thus far, the best systems I've seen are in Japan, Norway, and Germany.
- decacorn 8y ago
  watch the Staircase on Netflix. You will utterly lose complete faith in US justice system.
- influx 8y ago
  Japan has a conviction rate of over 99%, most of which are secured on the back of a confession. https://californiainnocenceproject.org/2013/01/japan-concerned-over-false-confessions/ https://californiainnocenceproject.org/2013/01/japan-concern...
  - travmatt 8y ago
    I can’t tell if you’re critiquing the Japanese justice system, but US prosecutors abuse plea bargaining just as badly.

rectang 8y ago

As an American: same. It makes more sense when you consider that in many U.S. states, the criminal justice system is used as a political weapon. Felony disenfranchisement is an important means of keeping minority populations from the ballot box. If you don't like how minorities vote, targeted laws and selective policing, prosecution, and sentencing can help you suppress their votes. From the article: > he was confident that a jury would sympathize with his plight. Hoping for a sympathetic jury in California might not be a bad gamble, but for a man with a Hispanic name and appearance, the odds are not so good in Kansas.

travmatt 8y ago
Not just the states, the DEA and FBI are important legal weapons as well.

refurb 8y ago

Wait, you’re against jury trials?

en4bz 8y ago
Maybe he meant indictments? The US is one of the few places that has Grand Jury Indictments. Most regions leave that up to the prosecutor.
kstenerud 8y ago
Absolutely. With a professional judge (NOT an elected judge!), you're in the hands of someone with years of training in law and justice. With a jury, you've got 12 yahoos off the street who don't know anything about the law or the tricks lawyers play, let alone what their own rights and obligations are. That's why American criminal court cases are "battles" Compared to German proceedings, juries are only marginally better than trial by ordeal.
- 394549 8y ago
  > Absolutely. With a professional judge (NOT an elected judge!), you're in the hands of someone with years of training in law and justice. With a jury, you've got 12 yahoos off the street who don't know anything about the law or the tricks lawyers play, let alone what their own rights and obligations are. It may reflect a difference in culture, but as an American, I feel juries are an important institutional check in a democratic society. Ultimately, the law is meant to serve the people, so the people should not just be subject to it, but they should also have an active role in its administration. I think that any deficit in jury quality should be addressed by improving the quality of the people the jurors are selected from, though increased legal education in the public schools. Perhaps the law should also be rendered in plainer language to make that easier. While there will always be legal specialists, I think it's important that the people themselves understand the law to a good degree.
- Amezarak 8y ago
  In the US, you can waive your right to a jury trial. When someone has a jury trial, it's because they elected to exercise their right to do so. They could have chosen to have a bench trial with only a judge. The state actually prefers for people to have bench trials because jury trials are more complicated and expensive. Jury trials benefit defendants. If you think that your fellow citizens would sympathize with your plight, maybe even exercise jury nullification, you want a jury trial. If you think your case isn't likely to win anyone over, but that you can get off based on legal technicalities, you want a bench trial. Judges are not always elected - it depends on the jurisdiction and type of judge. This is a complicated issue, but having seen firsthand how far the legal interpretation of the law drifts (because of the insularity of the legal community) from the popular sentiment that drives legislation, I'm strongly for some judges being elected. On top of that, appointed legal "expert" judges often do not deserve the respect you're according them. "Years of training in law and justice", in my experience, has the tendency of engendering in people a belief that they are better, wiser, and more right than anyone else.

travmatt 8y ago

You’re missing one of the greatest abuses of the American justice system - plea bargaining.

openasocket 8y ago

It should be noted this case took place in Federal court, where judges are appointed, not elected. It should also be noted that you can waive the right to a jury trial and get a bench trial instead.