3 ms·

> I am personally anti-populism, and think that civil cases with large financial stakes should be decided by an (appointed not elected) judge- not a random grou

by bb611 5y ago

> I am personally anti-populism, and think that civil cases with large financial stakes should be decided by an (appointed not elected) judge- not a random group of folks who can afford to skip work for two to four weeks. US Federal judges are all appointed, not elected, so not much to worry about there. The judge and jury serve different purposes in the US system. The judge's job is to decide questions of law, the jury's is to decide questions of fact. Appeals courts can generally only consider failures by the initial judge on questions of law, meaning it only gets overturned if the first judge really screwed up their job. Given that, it's not clear to me how removing the jury improves the system.

hash872 5y ago
Many state judge are elected- for a very long time, the US was the only country in world history to ever elect judges. It's unheard of, not just in the developed world, but also among developing countries. (We were however joined by Bolivia in 2011). And of course many important civil cases are heard in state court. This reminds me of the famous quote by a judge in West Virginia, Richard Neely. He actually said this! “As long as I am allowed to redistribute wealth from out-of-state companies to in-state plaintiffs, I shall continue to do so. Not only is my sleep enhanced when I give someone else’s money away, but so is my job security, because the in-state plaintiffs, their families and their friends will re-elect me. ”
lordnacho 5y ago
A bunch of randoms might not be good at deciding the facts. You'd think someone experienced would be better at this than a load of people who won't be held to account.
- AniseAbyss 5y ago
  The jury system sounded nice on paper but it runs into two problems 1 the average citizen is not the philosopher king that the Founding Fathers envisioned 2 people can't even be arsed to vote how much do they really care about their civic duty

by bb611 5y ago

hash872 5y ago

Many state judge are elected- for a very long time, the US was the only country in world history to ever elect judges. It's unheard of, not just in the developed world, but also among developing countries. (We were however joined by Bolivia in 2011). And of course many important civil cases are heard in state court. This reminds me of the famous quote by a judge in West Virginia, Richard Neely. He actually said this! “As long as I am allowed to redistribute wealth from out-of-state companies to in-state plaintiffs, I shall continue to do so. Not only is my sleep enhanced when I give someone else’s money away, but so is my job security, because the in-state plaintiffs, their families and their friends will re-elect me. ”

lordnacho 5y ago

A bunch of randoms might not be good at deciding the facts. You'd think someone experienced would be better at this than a load of people who won't be held to account.

AniseAbyss 5y ago
The jury system sounded nice on paper but it runs into two problems 1 the average citizen is not the philosopher king that the Founding Fathers envisioned 2 people can't even be arsed to vote how much do they really care about their civic duty