3 ms·

I think that corrupt judges is a separate issue to whether a judge employed by the state cam be impartial. It's also possible to bribe jurors to get off a conv

I think that corrupt judges is a separate issue to whether a judge employed by the state cam be impartial. It's also possible to bribe jurors to get off a conviction. Possibly easier than bribing a judge. All classes of people are corruptible.

WillPostForFood 8y ago
You'd have to bribe 12 jurors to guarantee a conviction for a single case. Bribe one judge, and you control hundreds of cases.
- ben_w 8y ago
  This leads to an obvious question: should anyone have the right to know who the jury is? After all, if you don’t know who they are, you can’t bribe them or blackmail them. Same argument applies to the judge. One-way-glass might be a work of fiction, but video cameras are not.
  - gowld 8y ago
    How do you guarantee a trial by jury, if you don't have to prove to the defendant that the jury exists?
    - apetresc 8y ago
      Just release the information afterwards, or notarize something. That's such a trivial problem to solve. How do you "prove" to the defendant that the jury in front of them right now isn't just the DA's extended family and friends?
    - knodi123 8y ago
      How do you guarantee a trial by jury, if an entire jury could be paid actors? It's a bit silly to worry about that level of conspiracy. But even if it weren't silly, there are easy answers. An oversight board, or revealing the jurors after the case is decided, or revealing the entire juror pool of 50 some-odd people, etc.
- bluGill 8y ago
  It isn't just bribing 12, it is bribing them in a short period of time. If I'm going to do something and want to bribe a judge I have years to research all the judges who might be at my trial (there are not very many). Each will have a different bribe that will work. (one doesn't want his wife to know about an affair; the next is in an open marriage and doesn't care but he has big gamboling debts that you can "take care of"...)

WillPostForFood 8y ago

You'd have to bribe 12 jurors to guarantee a conviction for a single case. Bribe one judge, and you control hundreds of cases.

ben_w 8y ago
This leads to an obvious question: should anyone have the right to know who the jury is? After all, if you don’t know who they are, you can’t bribe them or blackmail them. Same argument applies to the judge. One-way-glass might be a work of fiction, but video cameras are not.
- gowld 8y ago
  How do you guarantee a trial by jury, if you don't have to prove to the defendant that the jury exists?
  - apetresc 8y ago
    Just release the information afterwards, or notarize something. That's such a trivial problem to solve. How do you "prove" to the defendant that the jury in front of them right now isn't just the DA's extended family and friends?
  - knodi123 8y ago
    How do you guarantee a trial by jury, if an entire jury could be paid actors? It's a bit silly to worry about that level of conspiracy. But even if it weren't silly, there are easy answers. An oversight board, or revealing the jurors after the case is decided, or revealing the entire juror pool of 50 some-odd people, etc.
bluGill 8y ago
It isn't just bribing 12, it is bribing them in a short period of time. If I'm going to do something and want to bribe a judge I have years to research all the judges who might be at my trial (there are not very many). Each will have a different bribe that will work. (one doesn't want his wife to know about an affair; the next is in an open marriage and doesn't care but he has big gamboling debts that you can "take care of"...)