4 ms·

Corrupt? It's a jury of your peers, how is it corrupt? It's random people that decide your fate. In German it's judges. So a judge tries you and says you're gu

Corrupt? It's a jury of your peers, how is it corrupt? It's random people that decide your fate. In German it's judges. So a judge tries you and says you're guilty or innocent? You have to forego your right of trial by Jury in the USA for that to be the case.

kevingadd 7y ago
The corruption is that the lawyers are allowed to take advantage of the jury dismissal system to stack the jury, and in many locations they will do so.
- leetcrew 7y ago
  have you ever served on a jury? it really does not work this way. the defense and prosecution both get to dismiss as many people with obvious bias (eg, victim of gun violence in a murder trial) as they want. then they both get to dismiss a small number of people without giving a reason. usually there are not enough of the second type to actually "stack" a jury. plus the other side is going to use their strikes to dismiss your favorites anyway, and I believe the defense generally gets more strikes.
HorstG 7y ago
In Germany there is the Schoeffengericht aka jury trial for intermediate crime. Schoeffen are also called Laienrichter, layman judges, there just aren't that many of them and procedures are different. The decision of facts (as opposed to legal decisions) is a majority vote of professional and layman judges... edit: major —> intermediate
wongarsu 7y ago
I like being judged by a professional with experience. Judges are great. And if one judge or panel of judges is bad you will notice everything they do will be overturned in appeals. The problem is selecting good judges. In Germany this seems to work great, but what I see in recent times in the US terrifies me. Voting for judges leads to populists winning, appointing them leads to very questionable people being appointed for their stance on single issues. Maybe the real problem is that the US is so divided with all sides trying to score points against the other side (whether that's Democrats vs Republicans, Feminists vs everyone else, Black vs White, Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice etc). Everything else just follows from that.
- lacker 7y ago
  Part of trial by jury is to prevent the government from pushing immoral, dictatorial laws on its citizens. I wouldn’t say that Germany has a great track record of avoiding that.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    Hitler was a populist with many popular policies and broad support in the population. Trial by jury wouldn't have slowed him down. Apart from Hitler I can't think of any dictatorial laws in the last 150 years or so of (Western) German history. 12/150 seems better than average, so I wouldn't dismiss anything based on that. Trial by jury didn't seem to help African Americans in the first 100 years or so after slavery was abolished, so that's clearly not foolproof either
    - brigandish 7y ago
      Maybe if they'd had their white nationalists cleared out by outside influence it would have. That's what it took with Germany, they should thank the Americans for their part in that. Regardless, the foolproof is the enemy of the good. I doubt whataboutery based on whose deeply immoral and harmful behaviour is worse, of all things, is the way to win that argument.
      - wongarsu 7y ago
        >Maybe if they'd had their white nationalists cleared out by outside influence it would have. That's what it took with Germany I don't think "cleared out" is the right word. The war killed indiscriminately, and only 200 or so were sentenced to prison. Removing those people from power, let alone the country, would have left to few competent people to run a government. What happened was showing people why Nazis are bad (I think everyone is thankful for that). > I doubt whataboutery based on whose deeply immoral and harmful behaviour is worse, of all things, is the way to win that argument. You started with "your system is bad because of the one thing that happened 80 years ago". I think "your alternative failed as well and shows no evidence of preventing the thing it's supposed to prevent" is a perfectly valid counter argument.

kevingadd 7y ago

The corruption is that the lawyers are allowed to take advantage of the jury dismissal system to stack the jury, and in many locations they will do so.

leetcrew 7y ago
have you ever served on a jury? it really does not work this way. the defense and prosecution both get to dismiss as many people with obvious bias (eg, victim of gun violence in a murder trial) as they want. then they both get to dismiss a small number of people without giving a reason. usually there are not enough of the second type to actually "stack" a jury. plus the other side is going to use their strikes to dismiss your favorites anyway, and I believe the defense generally gets more strikes.

HorstG 7y ago

In Germany there is the Schoeffengericht aka jury trial for intermediate crime. Schoeffen are also called Laienrichter, layman judges, there just aren't that many of them and procedures are different. The decision of facts (as opposed to legal decisions) is a majority vote of professional and layman judges... edit: major —> intermediate

wongarsu 7y ago

I like being judged by a professional with experience. Judges are great. And if one judge or panel of judges is bad you will notice everything they do will be overturned in appeals. The problem is selecting good judges. In Germany this seems to work great, but what I see in recent times in the US terrifies me. Voting for judges leads to populists winning, appointing them leads to very questionable people being appointed for their stance on single issues. Maybe the real problem is that the US is so divided with all sides trying to score points against the other side (whether that's Democrats vs Republicans, Feminists vs everyone else, Black vs White, Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice etc). Everything else just follows from that.

lacker 7y ago
Part of trial by jury is to prevent the government from pushing immoral, dictatorial laws on its citizens. I wouldn’t say that Germany has a great track record of avoiding that.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  Hitler was a populist with many popular policies and broad support in the population. Trial by jury wouldn't have slowed him down. Apart from Hitler I can't think of any dictatorial laws in the last 150 years or so of (Western) German history. 12/150 seems better than average, so I wouldn't dismiss anything based on that. Trial by jury didn't seem to help African Americans in the first 100 years or so after slavery was abolished, so that's clearly not foolproof either
  - brigandish 7y ago
    Maybe if they'd had their white nationalists cleared out by outside influence it would have. That's what it took with Germany, they should thank the Americans for their part in that. Regardless, the foolproof is the enemy of the good. I doubt whataboutery based on whose deeply immoral and harmful behaviour is worse, of all things, is the way to win that argument.
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      >Maybe if they'd had their white nationalists cleared out by outside influence it would have. That's what it took with Germany I don't think "cleared out" is the right word. The war killed indiscriminately, and only 200 or so were sentenced to prison. Removing those people from power, let alone the country, would have left to few competent people to run a government. What happened was showing people why Nazis are bad (I think everyone is thankful for that). > I doubt whataboutery based on whose deeply immoral and harmful behaviour is worse, of all things, is the way to win that argument. You started with "your system is bad because of the one thing that happened 80 years ago". I think "your alternative failed as well and shows no evidence of preventing the thing it's supposed to prevent" is a perfectly valid counter argument.