22 ms·

"are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we thin

"are more important to more and more law students than due process, the presumption of innocence, and all the norms and values at the foundation of what we think of as the rule of law." this assumes that there was due process, presumption of innocence and a "rule of law" to start with. truth is, rich people can afford the best lawyer, poor people have to take a 10 years plea deal. I gave a bit of thought into this and came out with a solution which is called "loto-lawyer" you spin the wheel, and you get what you get as a lawyer. As ridiculous as it may sound, it would be something closer to justice...

simonsarris 5y ago
> this assumes that there was due process... The article doesn't assume that at all. Just because a system is unable to live up to its ideals in all (or even most) cases, we should still be concerned if the ideals themselves erode. This is a silly way to downplay the central subject.
- dang 5y ago
  > This is a silly Please don't call names in arguments here. It's against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) because it leads to much worse discussion. Your comment would be fine without that last sentence.
  - gadflyinyoureye 5y ago
    How about "This is a mentally slothful way..." It's same thing. Comment is about how poor the thought was behind their view.
    - dang 5y ago
      That would break the same guideline in the same way. It isn't necessary to call names—it doesn't add information. It suffices to point out what's wrong with an argument and trust the reader to be smart enough to get it.
  - ibejoeb 5y ago
    > This is a silly way "Silly" modifies "way," meaning the line of argumentation, not the speaker. Are you changing the guidelines to prohibit criticism of argument?
    - dang 5y ago
      The relevant guideline covers this case clearly and hasn't changed in over a decade: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Miner49er 5y ago
  This article doesn't offer up compelling evidence that the "ideals themselves" are eroding. It's just a collection of anecdotal examples, showing in some cases it doesn't live up to the ideals, in the author's opinion.
- peppermint_tea 5y ago
  The central subject is people refusing the statu quo of the current justicial system. The article does not assume that indeed, but reference to people that do (lawyers over 50 etc). I stand behind my comment and loto-lawyer to illustrate how broken the system is until we find a better alternative. your net worth should not have anything to do with "how much justice you can afford." I have plenty of examples to back this up.
trylfthsk 5y ago
As a big proponent of sortition, I fully endorse loto-lawyer. Maybe then we can continue with the lower houses of US legislatures.
giantg2 5y ago
Eh, the lawyer quality is only one small part. A much larger part is the unequal application of the law through prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion. Also, the best lawyer won't mean much if you get an incompetent or biased judge. Then you have the issue of just being charge will cost a ton of money. Even if you're innocent, you're financially punished. Most summary offenses cost more to hire a lawyer to defend your innocence than to plead guilty and pay the fine. This is by far the biggest farce of justice - being punished as much as a guilty person just to defend your innocence.
diputsmonro 5y ago
> this assumes that there was due process, presumption of innocence and a "rule of law" to start with. >truth is, rich people can afford the best lawyer, poor people have to take a 10 years plea deal. Exactly this. The author does a lot of hand-wringing about the loss of the current institutional practices, but never stops to consider that maybe those institutional practices were never as good as they were sold to be anyway. Justice has never been truly blind, for exactly the reasons you note. In a society that is structurally, historically biased (based on race, wealth, etc.), any institution that pretends that bias doesn't exist will simply allow that bias to be continue. This new generation has seen the flaws in that mentality and has chosen to fix them instead of continuing the problem. To put it another way: "evil prevails when good men do nothing". The system effectively "does nothing" now by ignoring existing structural bias, and thus allows the existing evils in society - racism, classic, etc. - to affect its outcome. It doesn't matter if the system isn't designed to be "evil", or that the people acting within it don't consider themselves to be evil - The evils in society will persist if they are not actively opposed. A change in mentality has occurred among the profession (and also as a wider cultural movement) that societal evils need to be actively called out and opposed rather than quietly tolerated. And honestly, I find it hard to disagree.

simonsarris 5y ago

> this assumes that there was due process... The article doesn't assume that at all. Just because a system is unable to live up to its ideals in all (or even most) cases, we should still be concerned if the ideals themselves erode. This is a silly way to downplay the central subject.

dang 5y ago
> This is a silly Please don't call names in arguments here. It's against the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) because it leads to much worse discussion. Your comment would be fine without that last sentence.
- gadflyinyoureye 5y ago
  How about "This is a mentally slothful way..." It's same thing. Comment is about how poor the thought was behind their view.
  - dang 5y ago
    That would break the same guideline in the same way. It isn't necessary to call names—it doesn't add information. It suffices to point out what's wrong with an argument and trust the reader to be smart enough to get it.
- ibejoeb 5y ago
  > This is a silly way "Silly" modifies "way," meaning the line of argumentation, not the speaker. Are you changing the guidelines to prohibit criticism of argument?
  - dang 5y ago
    The relevant guideline covers this case clearly and hasn't changed in over a decade: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Miner49er 5y ago
This article doesn't offer up compelling evidence that the "ideals themselves" are eroding. It's just a collection of anecdotal examples, showing in some cases it doesn't live up to the ideals, in the author's opinion.
peppermint_tea 5y ago
The central subject is people refusing the statu quo of the current justicial system. The article does not assume that indeed, but reference to people that do (lawyers over 50 etc). I stand behind my comment and loto-lawyer to illustrate how broken the system is until we find a better alternative. your net worth should not have anything to do with "how much justice you can afford." I have plenty of examples to back this up.

trylfthsk 5y ago

As a big proponent of sortition, I fully endorse loto-lawyer. Maybe then we can continue with the lower houses of US legislatures.

giantg2 5y ago

Eh, the lawyer quality is only one small part. A much larger part is the unequal application of the law through prosecutorial and law enforcement discretion. Also, the best lawyer won't mean much if you get an incompetent or biased judge. Then you have the issue of just being charge will cost a ton of money. Even if you're innocent, you're financially punished. Most summary offenses cost more to hire a lawyer to defend your innocence than to plead guilty and pay the fine. This is by far the biggest farce of justice - being punished as much as a guilty person just to defend your innocence.

diputsmonro 5y ago

> this assumes that there was due process, presumption of innocence and a "rule of law" to start with. >truth is, rich people can afford the best lawyer, poor people have to take a 10 years plea deal. Exactly this. The author does a lot of hand-wringing about the loss of the current institutional practices, but never stops to consider that maybe those institutional practices were never as good as they were sold to be anyway. Justice has never been truly blind, for exactly the reasons you note. In a society that is structurally, historically biased (based on race, wealth, etc.), any institution that pretends that bias doesn't exist will simply allow that bias to be continue. This new generation has seen the flaws in that mentality and has chosen to fix them instead of continuing the problem. To put it another way: "evil prevails when good men do nothing". The system effectively "does nothing" now by ignoring existing structural bias, and thus allows the existing evils in society - racism, classic, etc. - to affect its outcome. It doesn't matter if the system isn't designed to be "evil", or that the people acting within it don't consider themselves to be evil - The evils in society will persist if they are not actively opposed. A change in mentality has occurred among the profession (and also as a wider cultural movement) that societal evils need to be actively called out and opposed rather than quietly tolerated. And honestly, I find it hard to disagree.