3 ms·

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

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.

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.