5 ms·

I think part of the issue is the sheer scale of the problem. If I have 366 people in jail today awaiting trial and I try one case a day on average, it would be

by bena 4y ago

I think part of the issue is the sheer scale of the problem. If I have 366 people in jail today awaiting trial and I try one case a day on average, it would be a year before you get to the last person. Yes, the problem is alleviated with more judges, more lawyers, and more juries, but that's the problem. Those resources are not infinite.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
This is actually more of a funding problem than a supply problem. In many jurisdictions, the criminal justice system is expected to pay for itself, in part or nearly in total.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  If we’re talking supply and demand, reducing the supply of prosecutions for victimlesss crimes stuff like drug use and possession, reproductive decisions, and etc. might help alleviate the demand at courthouses.
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    Agreed. Eating the hotdog from both ends makes sense here.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    Damn near all possession laws and laws where criminal intent is not required should be civil offenses without potential penalty of jail time.
BobaFloutist 4y ago
They're not infinite, but I can't think of a concrete reason judges, lawyers, and juries aren't scalable to population. I can think of systemic limits, but none of them feel immutable.
- bena 4y ago
  You have issues with training and promotion in the cases of judges and lawyers. Not insurmountable, but there will be a lag if we were to say "We need X% more lawyers now". You also have the issue that in order to guarantee a trial as soon as all non-people concerns are resolved, you'll need judges and lawyers doing nothing. Once you're at 100% capacity, any additional case has to wait. And the length of the wait is indeterminate. The real problem, people-wise, is juries. Juries are selected from the community at large. They're vetted and questioned. This takes time. And not for the criminals, but for the juries themselves. You could easily wind up with essentially professional juries, which runs counter to the idea of "jury of your peers". And beyond that, all these cases need to be tried somewhere.
patmcc 4y ago
Then those 366 shouldn't be in jail. They're innocent people. The idea that we lock people up pre-trial is absolutely bonkers. Bail should be granted in all but the most extreme cases, and for any who aren't granted bail they should be at trial ASAP.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  For the vast majority of cases, bail shouldn't even be required.
  - landemva 4y ago
    SBF prosecutors got a big number bail, but nobody actually put up that cash. They pledged to pay later. So it's working for a financial scammer.
  - patmcc 4y ago
    Yah I should have clarified - 'bail should be granted' meaning people being released without cash bail - a promise to appear, holding passports, maybe other restrictions, I think those are pretty reasonable.
- bena 4y ago
  They're not technically innocent. Nor are they technically guilty. Their status is in question. And yes, the entire system is messed up. These people are being treated as definitely guilty when their status is in question. Sometimes for offenses that would not even require the level of incarceration they are at. You'll spend 15 months in jail awaiting trial for an offense that carries a 6 month maximum sentence. And even if they release you after 6 months because it would be cruel to incarcerate you "temporarily" for longer than the sentence to determine if you should even be incarcerated, it's not like you can get that 6 months back if you're not proven guilty. (Because the court doesn't prove you're innocent, just that it can't prove you're guilty, which is different.) But your last sentence comes back around to the problem of there not being enough capacity for these people. ASAP could very well be a year and a half. The system defers to assuming guilt because of fear. If you defer to assuming no guilt and you're wrong, you could be wrong in a very bad way. If you lock up an innocent man for 10 years, people will shake their heads and say "What a shame." If you let a murderer free while awaiting trial and they kill someone else, you are going to get absolutely fucked. And while the chance of the second is pretty low, it's not a chance any of them want to take. It's Pascal wager, but for crime. And we know crime and criminals exist.
marcus0x62 4y ago
We could also try fewer laws. Just a thought.

by bena 4y ago

DubiousPusher 4y ago

This is actually more of a funding problem than a supply problem. In many jurisdictions, the criminal justice system is expected to pay for itself, in part or nearly in total.

ok_dad 4y ago
If we’re talking supply and demand, reducing the supply of prosecutions for victimlesss crimes stuff like drug use and possession, reproductive decisions, and etc. might help alleviate the demand at courthouses.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  Agreed. Eating the hotdog from both ends makes sense here.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  Damn near all possession laws and laws where criminal intent is not required should be civil offenses without potential penalty of jail time.

BobaFloutist 4y ago

They're not infinite, but I can't think of a concrete reason judges, lawyers, and juries aren't scalable to population. I can think of systemic limits, but none of them feel immutable.

bena 4y ago
You have issues with training and promotion in the cases of judges and lawyers. Not insurmountable, but there will be a lag if we were to say "We need X% more lawyers now". You also have the issue that in order to guarantee a trial as soon as all non-people concerns are resolved, you'll need judges and lawyers doing nothing. Once you're at 100% capacity, any additional case has to wait. And the length of the wait is indeterminate. The real problem, people-wise, is juries. Juries are selected from the community at large. They're vetted and questioned. This takes time. And not for the criminals, but for the juries themselves. You could easily wind up with essentially professional juries, which runs counter to the idea of "jury of your peers". And beyond that, all these cases need to be tried somewhere.

patmcc 4y ago

Then those 366 shouldn't be in jail. They're innocent people. The idea that we lock people up pre-trial is absolutely bonkers. Bail should be granted in all but the most extreme cases, and for any who aren't granted bail they should be at trial ASAP.

alistairSH 4y ago
For the vast majority of cases, bail shouldn't even be required.
- landemva 4y ago
  SBF prosecutors got a big number bail, but nobody actually put up that cash. They pledged to pay later. So it's working for a financial scammer.
- patmcc 4y ago
  Yah I should have clarified - 'bail should be granted' meaning people being released without cash bail - a promise to appear, holding passports, maybe other restrictions, I think those are pretty reasonable.
bena 4y ago
They're not technically innocent. Nor are they technically guilty. Their status is in question. And yes, the entire system is messed up. These people are being treated as definitely guilty when their status is in question. Sometimes for offenses that would not even require the level of incarceration they are at. You'll spend 15 months in jail awaiting trial for an offense that carries a 6 month maximum sentence. And even if they release you after 6 months because it would be cruel to incarcerate you "temporarily" for longer than the sentence to determine if you should even be incarcerated, it's not like you can get that 6 months back if you're not proven guilty. (Because the court doesn't prove you're innocent, just that it can't prove you're guilty, which is different.) But your last sentence comes back around to the problem of there not being enough capacity for these people. ASAP could very well be a year and a half. The system defers to assuming guilt because of fear. If you defer to assuming no guilt and you're wrong, you could be wrong in a very bad way. If you lock up an innocent man for 10 years, people will shake their heads and say "What a shame." If you let a murderer free while awaiting trial and they kill someone else, you are going to get absolutely fucked. And while the chance of the second is pretty low, it's not a chance any of them want to take. It's Pascal wager, but for crime. And we know crime and criminals exist.

marcus0x62 4y ago

We could also try fewer laws. Just a thought.