5 ms·

Why does 'the system' seem to make this process so painfully slow and seemingly reject requests for information/appeals arbitrarily? It seems much of the 15 yea

by tibbon 16y ago

Why does 'the system' seem to make this process so painfully slow and seemingly reject requests for information/appeals arbitrarily? It seems much of the 15 years here was spent playing paperwork games with the legal system.

anigbrowl 16y ago
I don't know about the state of NY, but the entire federal court system only takes up about 2.5% of the federal budget - when you think about it, it's the least expensive branch of government by far. The flip side, though, is that there are far more cases to be heard at any given time than there are courts and personnel to hear them, and complex technical rules which have to be complied with. It seems very inefficient and arbitrary, but generally all of those rules were created in response to so some failing in the previous version. Every so often the 'legacy code' becomes unmanageable and a relevant part of the law is redrafted or similarly overhauled. For example, California switched over to a completely new set of jury instructions known as CALCRIM for criminal trials a few years ago, designed to eliminate a lot of unnecessary confusion and legalistic cruft which had accrued to the previous version, known as CALJIC. But even drafting those from scratch takes years. My reference copy of CALCRIM is about 2500 pages over 3 volumes. And that's just criminal - there's a lot more for civil trials. A LOT more. Think of it like encountering Unix as a complete newbie. You know what computers are for and what they can do, but but actually learning unix at the command line is pretty complicated, no?
- gersh 16y ago
  Are there too few judges? Is expanding the judiciary an option? Are too many lawyers incompetent?
  - krakensden 16y ago
    There is definitely a significant judicial shortage at the federal level, but most crimes don't wind up there.
gallerytungsten 16y ago
"The system" slows the process because there is systemic corruption. Just as cops don't want to be photographed, prosecutors don't want their convictions overturned. So they don't play fair, and do everything they can to avoid true justice.
- Locke1689 16y ago
  Citation?
  - shrikant 16y ago
    In general, I couldn't say. (Also, a citation showing that the people who are ostensibly meant to uphold the law are in fact not playing fair and doing everything they can avoid justice..? What? How would that work) But a nice example would be this very case - even after the case was basically retro-actively thrown out, the prosecutor's office still maintain everything was kosher. (They still maintain that Collins is guilty - seriously, what the fuck?)
    - Locke1689 16y ago
      Even if there is corruption you have no data which says that is the primary actor in this phenomenon.
      - gallerytungsten 16y ago
        Don't mistake a singular possibility for the general. I gave one possibility; one that's real for me; whether it's the "primary" reason or not remains open to speculation. Many possibilities are possible simultaneously; this all depends on location and individual circumstance, along with the passage of time. Be part of the problem, or propose part of the solution: that's on you, me, and everyone else who considers the matter. But consider whether you consider, whether you contribute; or whether you merely detract.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

by tibbon 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

I don't know about the state of NY, but the entire federal court system only takes up about 2.5% of the federal budget - when you think about it, it's the least expensive branch of government by far. The flip side, though, is that there are far more cases to be heard at any given time than there are courts and personnel to hear them, and complex technical rules which have to be complied with. It seems very inefficient and arbitrary, but generally all of those rules were created in response to so some failing in the previous version. Every so often the 'legacy code' becomes unmanageable and a relevant part of the law is redrafted or similarly overhauled. For example, California switched over to a completely new set of jury instructions known as CALCRIM for criminal trials a few years ago, designed to eliminate a lot of unnecessary confusion and legalistic cruft which had accrued to the previous version, known as CALJIC. But even drafting those from scratch takes years. My reference copy of CALCRIM is about 2500 pages over 3 volumes. And that's just criminal - there's a lot more for civil trials. A LOT more. Think of it like encountering Unix as a complete newbie. You know what computers are for and what they can do, but but actually learning unix at the command line is pretty complicated, no?

gersh 16y ago
Are there too few judges? Is expanding the judiciary an option? Are too many lawyers incompetent?
- krakensden 16y ago
  There is definitely a significant judicial shortage at the federal level, but most crimes don't wind up there.

gallerytungsten 16y ago

"The system" slows the process because there is systemic corruption. Just as cops don't want to be photographed, prosecutors don't want their convictions overturned. So they don't play fair, and do everything they can to avoid true justice.

Locke1689 16y ago
Citation?
- shrikant 16y ago
  In general, I couldn't say. (Also, a citation showing that the people who are ostensibly meant to uphold the law are in fact not playing fair and doing everything they can avoid justice..? What? How would that work) But a nice example would be this very case - even after the case was basically retro-actively thrown out, the prosecutor's office still maintain everything was kosher. (They still maintain that Collins is guilty - seriously, what the fuck?)
  - Locke1689 16y ago
    Even if there is corruption you have no data which says that is the primary actor in this phenomenon.
    - gallerytungsten 16y ago
      Don't mistake a singular possibility for the general. I gave one possibility; one that's real for me; whether it's the "primary" reason or not remains open to speculation. Many possibilities are possible simultaneously; this all depends on location and individual circumstance, along with the passage of time. Be part of the problem, or propose part of the solution: that's on you, me, and everyone else who considers the matter. But consider whether you consider, whether you contribute; or whether you merely detract.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]