3 ms·

Not an American, but I have some questions * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12

Not an American, but I have some questions * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't) * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around? * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism? * If the purpose of prison is to pay your time to the community, why do you have a box that must be ticked that seems to push people back towards crime? I don't think arguing the police are the problem does anything to address much larger systemic issues that seem to have much more dramatic consequences at scale.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
The jury in 2021 serves the same purpose that it did in the 18th century, especially in criminal trials. A jury means that the government has to prove its case, not just to one person who's employed by the government (the judge), but to some random people off the street. The purpose is to make it harder for the government to just put people away "because we said so" - outside the rule of law. It also can serve as a brake on insane or unjust laws, though it does not always do so. Now, for a complex or technical civil trial (Oracle v Google, say), it has flaws. That I will freely admit. But the businesses in those kinds of trials can choose to have a bench trial (that is, one decided by the judge). When they choose not to, it's because they think they are more likely to be able to snow the jury than the judge. Unfortunately, if I understand correctly it only takes one side to choose a jury trial, and the one with no real case is more likely to do so.
ardy42 6y ago
> * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't) I'm speculating, but I think the idea was to put a check on the authorities by placing the actual decision-making power in the people. I think that's a valid principle. Even if Oracle v Google was a bench trial (e.g. no jury), the judge would still probably have to be educated on the technical issues, just like a jury. IIRC, technically a jury could even decide the law is BS and refuse to convict for that reason alone, but the system puts up a lot of roadblocks to reduce the change of that happening (e.g. the defense counsel can't argue for it or remind them of that option). > * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around? Because public defenders are underpaid and overworked, and that's because it's an easier sell to the voters to raise taxes to hire police to lower crime than to raise taxes to hire public defenders for fairer government. There's also been a history of "tough on crime" rhetoric/attitudes that makes it even more difficult. Also: the suspects on crime shows are almost always actually guilty (whether successfully convicted or now), which creates the impression that it's the job of defense lawyers to help the guilty go free. > * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism? I'm not sure who's arguing this, but my guess it's probably someone who benefiting from that industry. My vague recollection was that private prisons were sold as a cost-saving measure, like most privatization schemes.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

The jury in 2021 serves the same purpose that it did in the 18th century, especially in criminal trials. A jury means that the government has to prove its case, not just to one person who's employed by the government (the judge), but to some random people off the street. The purpose is to make it harder for the government to just put people away "because we said so" - outside the rule of law. It also can serve as a brake on insane or unjust laws, though it does not always do so. Now, for a complex or technical civil trial (Oracle v Google, say), it has flaws. That I will freely admit. But the businesses in those kinds of trials can choose to have a bench trial (that is, one decided by the judge). When they choose not to, it's because they think they are more likely to be able to snow the jury than the judge. Unfortunately, if I understand correctly it only takes one side to choose a jury trial, and the one with no real case is more likely to do so.

ardy42 6y ago

> * What purpose does the Jury serve in 2021? Made sense in the 18th century, doesn't now. Look at Oracle v Google, 12 totally qualified people made that decision (spoiler, they weren't) I'm speculating, but I think the idea was to put a check on the authorities by placing the actual decision-making power in the people. I think that's a valid principle. Even if Oracle v Google was a bench trial (e.g. no jury), the judge would still probably have to be educated on the technical issues, just like a jury. IIRC, technically a jury could even decide the law is BS and refuse to convict for that reason alone, but the system puts up a lot of roadblocks to reduce the change of that happening (e.g. the defense counsel can't argue for it or remind them of that option). > * Why do such a mind numbingly high amount of public defender cases end in plea bargains, and why is the average time spent by a public defender on any given case in the order of _minutes_ in _any_ region of the wealthiest nation around? Because public defenders are underpaid and overworked, and that's because it's an easier sell to the voters to raise taxes to hire police to lower crime than to raise taxes to hire public defenders for fairer government. There's also been a history of "tough on crime" rhetoric/attitudes that makes it even more difficult. Also: the suspects on crime shows are almost always actually guilty (whether successfully convicted or now), which creates the impression that it's the job of defense lawyers to help the guilty go free. > * What's up with private prisons, and how can they argue they don't have a negative impact on recidivism? I'm not sure who's arguing this, but my guess it's probably someone who benefiting from that industry. My vague recollection was that private prisons were sold as a cost-saving measure, like most privatization schemes.