3 ms·

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

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.
- kstenerud 8y ago
  What I've found is that jury systems tend to favor the "competition" model of justice, where prosecution and defense are locked in combat, with the judge as referee. Lawyers are gauged based on their ability to win cases rather than their ability to practice law well. Underhanded and unfair tactics, rather than receiving criticism, are honored and celebrated. It very much follows the American model of "win at all costs." This gladiator approach to justice becomes all the more apparent when there's a high profile case, where every tactic, every gambit, every "blow" to the opposition is cheered on by onlookers, like it's some kind of UFC match. America hasn't actually progressed very far from frontier justice.
  - Amezarak 8y ago
    > What I've found is that jury systems tend to favor the "competition" model of justice, where prosecution and defense are locked in combat, with the judge as referee. Lawyers are gauged based on their ability to win cases rather than their ability to practice law well. Underhanded and unfair tactics, rather than receiving criticism, are honored and celebrated. It very much follows the American model of "win at all costs." This is the case on legal dramas and very high profile cases, perhaps, but certainly not the vast majority of cases that actually go to trial - there is no interested audience that cares for most cases. Certainly the system is set up to be adversarial (though it generally isn't so much in practice), but for the most part, that benefits defendants. Yes, I suppose if you're worried about Law and Order and the Public Peace, it's easier to just route everyone into a system that effectively mirrors the American plea bargaining system. But I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free because of their showboating lawyers than one innocent man go to prison. I'm not really clear on what "underhanded tactics" you have in mind; the ones I know well are practiced generally by law enforcement and public prosecutors, who necessarily hold most of the cards, and they do it for bench trials too. But again, I think it's important to emphasize that the jury trial is an option for a defendant in a criminal case. It's an important option that no state-driven process can replicate, because you're ultimately ceding the case to the law and your peers, instead of just one or more out of touch, even elitist, judges, who may be "interpreting" the law very far from its plain reading or intent (in accordance with established legal practice) and who may take a very dim view of illegal behavior that society at large doesn't care about (say, smoking weed.) > America hasn't actually progressed very far from frontier justice. I think this remark deserves some expansion, since there's no obvious connection between frontier justice and the American jury trial system; it comes across as a wholly unsubstantive statement that's meant to tarnish it rather than explain it.
CyberDildonics 8y ago
> With a jury, you've got 12 yahoos off the street It was originally written as a 'jury of your peers', though it seems to be a good strategy to make sure the jury is the furthest thing from that.
- refurb 8y ago
  I spent 8 weeks on a murder trial as a jury member. I have to admit that my fellow jurors exceeded my expectations. People generally wanted justice to be done. Genuinely assume someone innocent and the prosecutor bearing the burden to prove to otherwise. Were there people who didn’t quite grasp some of the concepts? Sure, but other jurors quickly reined them in. The judge did a very nice job in explaining the role of the juror and was there to answer any questions. It really made me feel much better about justice being done with jury trials.
  - kstenerud 8y ago
    It's easy to feel good about the system you know... until you're blessed to see an alternative in action.
    - openasocket 8y ago
      Have an anecdote you care to share?
      - kstenerud 8y ago
        I sat in on a drug trafficking trial in Hamburg. There was one judge, two lay judges, a scribe, and two lawyers. It was just a normal room with office tables and very little ceremony. The witnesses were mostly questioned by the judge, with some questions from the lawyers to clarify. The defendant admitted to the crime, and then the rest of the trial was examination of the circumstances (you can't just plead guilty and then be sentenced). Although the lawyers "worked" for each side, the primary purpose of the questioning was to get to the truth. At the end, the lawyer for the state thanked the defendant for being candid. Both lawyers then offered their idea of a fair outcome, and then the judge declared a recess while she decided the verdict (what laws the defendant is judged to have violated) and punishment. The judge was lenient, and sentenced the defendant under a law requiring a lesser punishment, due to the circumstances (she was working for her boyfriend). There is no plea bargaining. There are no deals. Criminal cases go to trial, always. The purpose of the trial is not to "win" or "lose"; it's to get to the truth, no matter what it is, disrupt peoples' lives as little as possible while still serving justice, and everyone takes that purpose VERY seriously. I was also impressed at how quickly it was completed (3 hours). A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that they won't even lock a defendant up (aside from the initial holding and processing that takes about 1 day). There is no bail. They only jail someone pending trial if they are a flight risk or would tamper with the trial (happens in less than 1% of cases). Police cannot pressure defendants into pleading anything. Defendants can't even plead guilty or innocent - that's for the courts to decide. They take the "getting to the truth" part very seriously.
travmatt 8y ago
Some Yale Law professors find the German justice system much more equitable than the American system, and show how American prosecutors use plea bargaining as a torture technique - the essay is called torture and plea bargaining. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4154&context=uclrev https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...
refurb 8y ago
Where I disagree is with jury nullification. If I can convince a jury of my peers that although I may be guilty, the law is immoral, I can be found not guilty. Good luck getting a judge to do that.

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.

kstenerud 8y ago
What I've found is that jury systems tend to favor the "competition" model of justice, where prosecution and defense are locked in combat, with the judge as referee. Lawyers are gauged based on their ability to win cases rather than their ability to practice law well. Underhanded and unfair tactics, rather than receiving criticism, are honored and celebrated. It very much follows the American model of "win at all costs." This gladiator approach to justice becomes all the more apparent when there's a high profile case, where every tactic, every gambit, every "blow" to the opposition is cheered on by onlookers, like it's some kind of UFC match. America hasn't actually progressed very far from frontier justice.
- Amezarak 8y ago
  > What I've found is that jury systems tend to favor the "competition" model of justice, where prosecution and defense are locked in combat, with the judge as referee. Lawyers are gauged based on their ability to win cases rather than their ability to practice law well. Underhanded and unfair tactics, rather than receiving criticism, are honored and celebrated. It very much follows the American model of "win at all costs." This is the case on legal dramas and very high profile cases, perhaps, but certainly not the vast majority of cases that actually go to trial - there is no interested audience that cares for most cases. Certainly the system is set up to be adversarial (though it generally isn't so much in practice), but for the most part, that benefits defendants. Yes, I suppose if you're worried about Law and Order and the Public Peace, it's easier to just route everyone into a system that effectively mirrors the American plea bargaining system. But I'd rather a hundred guilty men go free because of their showboating lawyers than one innocent man go to prison. I'm not really clear on what "underhanded tactics" you have in mind; the ones I know well are practiced generally by law enforcement and public prosecutors, who necessarily hold most of the cards, and they do it for bench trials too. But again, I think it's important to emphasize that the jury trial is an option for a defendant in a criminal case. It's an important option that no state-driven process can replicate, because you're ultimately ceding the case to the law and your peers, instead of just one or more out of touch, even elitist, judges, who may be "interpreting" the law very far from its plain reading or intent (in accordance with established legal practice) and who may take a very dim view of illegal behavior that society at large doesn't care about (say, smoking weed.) > America hasn't actually progressed very far from frontier justice. I think this remark deserves some expansion, since there's no obvious connection between frontier justice and the American jury trial system; it comes across as a wholly unsubstantive statement that's meant to tarnish it rather than explain it.

CyberDildonics 8y ago

> With a jury, you've got 12 yahoos off the street It was originally written as a 'jury of your peers', though it seems to be a good strategy to make sure the jury is the furthest thing from that.

refurb 8y ago
I spent 8 weeks on a murder trial as a jury member. I have to admit that my fellow jurors exceeded my expectations. People generally wanted justice to be done. Genuinely assume someone innocent and the prosecutor bearing the burden to prove to otherwise. Were there people who didn’t quite grasp some of the concepts? Sure, but other jurors quickly reined them in. The judge did a very nice job in explaining the role of the juror and was there to answer any questions. It really made me feel much better about justice being done with jury trials.
- kstenerud 8y ago
  It's easy to feel good about the system you know... until you're blessed to see an alternative in action.
  - openasocket 8y ago
    Have an anecdote you care to share?
    - kstenerud 8y ago
      I sat in on a drug trafficking trial in Hamburg. There was one judge, two lay judges, a scribe, and two lawyers. It was just a normal room with office tables and very little ceremony. The witnesses were mostly questioned by the judge, with some questions from the lawyers to clarify. The defendant admitted to the crime, and then the rest of the trial was examination of the circumstances (you can't just plead guilty and then be sentenced). Although the lawyers "worked" for each side, the primary purpose of the questioning was to get to the truth. At the end, the lawyer for the state thanked the defendant for being candid. Both lawyers then offered their idea of a fair outcome, and then the judge declared a recess while she decided the verdict (what laws the defendant is judged to have violated) and punishment. The judge was lenient, and sentenced the defendant under a law requiring a lesser punishment, due to the circumstances (she was working for her boyfriend). There is no plea bargaining. There are no deals. Criminal cases go to trial, always. The purpose of the trial is not to "win" or "lose"; it's to get to the truth, no matter what it is, disrupt peoples' lives as little as possible while still serving justice, and everyone takes that purpose VERY seriously. I was also impressed at how quickly it was completed (3 hours). A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that they won't even lock a defendant up (aside from the initial holding and processing that takes about 1 day). There is no bail. They only jail someone pending trial if they are a flight risk or would tamper with the trial (happens in less than 1% of cases). Police cannot pressure defendants into pleading anything. Defendants can't even plead guilty or innocent - that's for the courts to decide. They take the "getting to the truth" part very seriously.

travmatt 8y ago

Some Yale Law professors find the German justice system much more equitable than the American system, and show how American prosecutors use plea bargaining as a torture technique - the essay is called torture and plea bargaining. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4154&context=uclrev https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

refurb 8y ago

Where I disagree is with jury nullification. If I can convince a jury of my peers that although I may be guilty, the law is immoral, I can be found not guilty. Good luck getting a judge to do that.