4 ms·

>...Every criminal case goes before a jury. No they don't. >..... If enough cases are decided despite the letter of the law, In the US, the process IS the pu

>...Every criminal case goes before a jury. No they don't. >..... If enough cases are decided despite the letter of the law, In the US, the process IS the punishment. So even if people are found not guilty, they still incur the costs of impound fees, forefeiture of property destroyed or taken during arrest/search, loss of lawyer fees, having to check the box on job applications and whatnot. And laws don't change for the better because people get off on charges.

_heimdall 4y ago
I the US the process can absolutely be a nightmare. But laws have absolutely changed because they were effectively unenforceable. Towards the end of prohibition juries were regularly refusing to convict anyone on drinking charges. Didn't take long, all things considered, for the law to be thrown out because it kept clogging up the legal system with cases that ended in not guilty. My original point was simply that juries can be doing something about laws they disagree with now. Often this topic turns to a solution that is entirely rebuilding the system which is an almost impossible feat - the system is too bjgto just put on hold for a year while we all decide what to replace it with. I don't know if you've ever been on a jury closely related to a case, but both the judge and prosecutor will describe the jury's job as hearing the law, revising the facts presented,and deciding if the law as written a broken. We have taken that lesson and treated it this way, but a jury can tell the lawyers to f$#& off and decide whether they want to punish not whether the law was broken.
- watwut 4y ago
  95% or so cases ends with guilty plea. It is just too expensive to ask for trial. First, it costs huge amount of money. Second, if you go to trial and loose, you will get massively higher sentence then the one offered when pleading guilty. It can make difference between being released on symbolic punishment and several years. It is a huge risk. Basically, for your plan to work, many people would had to self sacrifice.
  - _heimdall 4y ago
    We can and should make the legal system cheaper and more expedient, we lost our right to a speedy and fair trial a long time ago. I do completely agree the plan would require a huge saccrafice and risk for quite a few people and that's a terrible thing to ask for. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to enact change when the system is so massive and rigged against us. Tearing down and replacing the legal system in one shot will never happen and comes with its own problems and unknown damage. Using the system as-is against itself at least has a chance. I'd argue it wouldn't take too many cases before DAs realize they're putting massive amounts of effort into petty drug cases, as an example, that continue to lose in court simply because the jury isn't interested in punishing their peers for what msy technically be illegal in that case.

_heimdall 4y ago

I the US the process can absolutely be a nightmare. But laws have absolutely changed because they were effectively unenforceable. Towards the end of prohibition juries were regularly refusing to convict anyone on drinking charges. Didn't take long, all things considered, for the law to be thrown out because it kept clogging up the legal system with cases that ended in not guilty. My original point was simply that juries can be doing something about laws they disagree with now. Often this topic turns to a solution that is entirely rebuilding the system which is an almost impossible feat - the system is too bjgto just put on hold for a year while we all decide what to replace it with. I don't know if you've ever been on a jury closely related to a case, but both the judge and prosecutor will describe the jury's job as hearing the law, revising the facts presented,and deciding if the law as written a broken. We have taken that lesson and treated it this way, but a jury can tell the lawyers to f$#& off and decide whether they want to punish not whether the law was broken.

watwut 4y ago
95% or so cases ends with guilty plea. It is just too expensive to ask for trial. First, it costs huge amount of money. Second, if you go to trial and loose, you will get massively higher sentence then the one offered when pleading guilty. It can make difference between being released on symbolic punishment and several years. It is a huge risk. Basically, for your plan to work, many people would had to self sacrifice.
- _heimdall 4y ago
  We can and should make the legal system cheaper and more expedient, we lost our right to a speedy and fair trial a long time ago. I do completely agree the plan would require a huge saccrafice and risk for quite a few people and that's a terrible thing to ask for. Unfortunately that's sometimes the only way to enact change when the system is so massive and rigged against us. Tearing down and replacing the legal system in one shot will never happen and comes with its own problems and unknown damage. Using the system as-is against itself at least has a chance. I'd argue it wouldn't take too many cases before DAs realize they're putting massive amounts of effort into petty drug cases, as an example, that continue to lose in court simply because the jury isn't interested in punishing their peers for what msy technically be illegal in that case.