> * 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 decisi

> * 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.