3 ms·

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.
- openasocket 8y ago
  What you are referring to is an inquisitorial court system, as opposed to an adversarial court system. You might have known that already, but no one in this thread as mentioned those terms so I thought I'd throw them out there. There are pros and cons to both approaches. I'd caution you from basing your opinion on that court system from that case, since it seems the defendant openly admitted to committing the crime. I'd compare what happened there to what would happen in a criminal trial where the defense pleads guilty. Seeing as how you don't like the idea of jury trials, I'm curious what your opinion is on lay judges.
  - kstenerud 8y ago
    I would assume that the lay judges are there to keep the professional judge's feet on the ground. Their opinions are non-binding, but would in theory have at least some influence, and provide a reality check with what the greater population thinks. How that actually works out in practice, I don't know. A study would be useful.

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.

openasocket 8y ago
What you are referring to is an inquisitorial court system, as opposed to an adversarial court system. You might have known that already, but no one in this thread as mentioned those terms so I thought I'd throw them out there. There are pros and cons to both approaches. I'd caution you from basing your opinion on that court system from that case, since it seems the defendant openly admitted to committing the crime. I'd compare what happened there to what would happen in a criminal trial where the defense pleads guilty. Seeing as how you don't like the idea of jury trials, I'm curious what your opinion is on lay judges.
- kstenerud 8y ago
  I would assume that the lay judges are there to keep the professional judge's feet on the ground. Their opinions are non-binding, but would in theory have at least some influence, and provide a reality check with what the greater population thinks. How that actually works out in practice, I don't know. A study would be useful.