> Unlike in USSR, American judges don't join their past clients in the gulag if they disagree with prosecutors. Why do they do it then? Judges are meant to jus

> Unlike in USSR, American judges don't join their past clients in the gulag if they disagree with prosecutors. Why do they do it then? Judges are meant to just be referees. Even if a judge thinks you're innocent and knows a defence you could use, they can't suggest you use it; they have to wait for your lawyer to bring it up. Now yes, in theory, if you had an open-minded, honest, unbiased judge patiently investigate all the facts and make a decision, it would be more fair than having a highly-trained-and-motivated prosecutor "playing the legal game" to score political points against an overworked and underfunded public defender. But how can you be sure you only appoint open-minded, honest, unbiased judges? Having the opportunity to state your own case in front of a selection of 12 random people has both a lower maximum but also a much higher minimum expected value.