5 ms·

> and perhaps forgiveness. I would agree here, on the condition of rehabilitation. Obviously our "justice system", isn't. Edit: Speaking of the US above, no

> and perhaps forgiveness. I would agree here, on the condition of rehabilitation. Obviously our "justice system", isn't. Edit: Speaking of the US above, no experience or knowledge about other countries systems. It appears I've found a new gap in my knowledge, anyone have a good intro to how courts work in their country?

skissane 5y ago
My lawyer friend and I are both Australians, and he works as a criminal lawyer in the Australian legal system. The US inherited the basics of its legal system from that of England. Australia did too, along with many other countries. So at a very high level, the basics are the same. But, there has been a lot of divergent evolution, so as we drill down into the details lots of differences come up. I think one huge difference is not really legal but social – Australia has always been a less violent society, with less violent crime and less social conflict than the US has, which reduces political pressure for punitiveness in the legal system. On a per capita basis, the US homicide rate is 5 times that of Australia, and while these numbers go up and down, I think it has been consistently significantly higher than Australia's, for many decades.
- owlninja 5y ago
  Can you shed some light on rehabilitation in Australian prisons?
  - skissane 5y ago
    I don’t really know. My uneducated impression is that Australia’s prisons are harsher than those of many Western/Northern European countries but not as bad as those of the US-but I don’t know of any hard data on the issue. Rehabilitation is officially an objective and of course the prison system makes some attempts but we can always question if they do enough.
kstenerud 5y ago
In Germany, they use the inquisitorial system. There is no jury, only judges. In smaller matters, it's one professional judge and two lay judges. In bigger matters it's 3 professional judges and five lay judges. The professional judges hold the ultimate decision, and the lay judges advise (but they do have a lot of influence). And of course one can appeal. There is no such thing as plea bargaining (which is considered a perversion of justice) or bail (which is considered to be jailing the poor). People are rarely jailed pending trial (unless their place of residence cannot be established, or they're considered a flight risk - a very high bar to pass). There's no "perp walk" or handcuffs or any of that humiliation stuff (unless you actually ARE being a pain). After the verdict, you're usually given a month or two to tie up your affairs outside before being ordered by mail to report to prison. The relationship between lawyers is one of cooperation (albeit with the agenda of pushing towards their point of view). The purpose of the court proceedings is to get to the truth of the matter. There are no theatrics, no grand speeches, no "chewbacca" defense. Withholding evidence or deliberately hampering the other side is severely frowned upon. "Winning" the case is not the point; representing your side well is. Lawyers have no election aspirations, and thus no public to impress with their prosecutorial prowess. One cannot become a judge without years of training and a degree (there's no such thing as elected judges). The result is a very calm, organized court proceeding, because everyone involved knows the law and is committed to it. You can't bamboozle with doublespeak, shady arguments or unproven methods because there's no "man on the street" juror to deceive; only the judges, who are trained to know better. Anyone can sit in on a proceeding (I've done so). There's very little ceremony, and often it's just a bunch of people sitting around conference tables in a small room.

skissane 5y ago

My lawyer friend and I are both Australians, and he works as a criminal lawyer in the Australian legal system. The US inherited the basics of its legal system from that of England. Australia did too, along with many other countries. So at a very high level, the basics are the same. But, there has been a lot of divergent evolution, so as we drill down into the details lots of differences come up. I think one huge difference is not really legal but social – Australia has always been a less violent society, with less violent crime and less social conflict than the US has, which reduces political pressure for punitiveness in the legal system. On a per capita basis, the US homicide rate is 5 times that of Australia, and while these numbers go up and down, I think it has been consistently significantly higher than Australia's, for many decades.

owlninja 5y ago
Can you shed some light on rehabilitation in Australian prisons?
- skissane 5y ago
  I don’t really know. My uneducated impression is that Australia’s prisons are harsher than those of many Western/Northern European countries but not as bad as those of the US-but I don’t know of any hard data on the issue. Rehabilitation is officially an objective and of course the prison system makes some attempts but we can always question if they do enough.

kstenerud 5y ago

In Germany, they use the inquisitorial system. There is no jury, only judges. In smaller matters, it's one professional judge and two lay judges. In bigger matters it's 3 professional judges and five lay judges. The professional judges hold the ultimate decision, and the lay judges advise (but they do have a lot of influence). And of course one can appeal. There is no such thing as plea bargaining (which is considered a perversion of justice) or bail (which is considered to be jailing the poor). People are rarely jailed pending trial (unless their place of residence cannot be established, or they're considered a flight risk - a very high bar to pass). There's no "perp walk" or handcuffs or any of that humiliation stuff (unless you actually ARE being a pain). After the verdict, you're usually given a month or two to tie up your affairs outside before being ordered by mail to report to prison. The relationship between lawyers is one of cooperation (albeit with the agenda of pushing towards their point of view). The purpose of the court proceedings is to get to the truth of the matter. There are no theatrics, no grand speeches, no "chewbacca" defense. Withholding evidence or deliberately hampering the other side is severely frowned upon. "Winning" the case is not the point; representing your side well is. Lawyers have no election aspirations, and thus no public to impress with their prosecutorial prowess. One cannot become a judge without years of training and a degree (there's no such thing as elected judges). The result is a very calm, organized court proceeding, because everyone involved knows the law and is committed to it. You can't bamboozle with doublespeak, shady arguments or unproven methods because there's no "man on the street" juror to deceive; only the judges, who are trained to know better. Anyone can sit in on a proceeding (I've done so). There's very little ceremony, and often it's just a bunch of people sitting around conference tables in a small room.