6 ms·

Nobody would take that job. If they did they would be hyper-cautious and never prosecute or sentence anyone. Better to just abolish the judicial system. Maybe y

by fwipsy 3y ago

Nobody would take that job. If they did they would be hyper-cautious and never prosecute or sentence anyone. Better to just abolish the judicial system. Maybe you disagree, but I think that would be worse than the status quo. There's always room to improve the system, but the way to do that is to make it resilient to individual failures, not by placing more pressure on the individual not to make mistakes.

Ekaros 3y ago
So it would be better. No innocent would go to prison. Abolishing system is valid option. If it is clearly failing it is not worth keeping.
- slt2021 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
    Do you think no one reading this hasn't grown up there? Think before you speak.
    - kortilla 3y ago
      Nobody said that. Any the people who did grow up in unsafe areas generally don’t recommend it. It’s not a hot take.
  - ruined 3y ago
    why do you say it's abolished there? it's my understanding that those areas are acutely suffering under the existing system.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  The perfect is the enemy of the good. The notion that if something isn't perfect, it must be abolished is, simply put, ridiculous. Trivially, if you have no criminal justice system, no innocent person would go to prison; it's as foolish as claiming there would be no poverty if there were no human beings. But crime would increase. The bulwark against those who do not live according to moral principles, who do not respect the law, would be removed, as such people respond only to the fear of punishment. And the law and the justice system are also instructive. Part of their purpose is to teach. You will not teach justice without being just, and that entails punishment. The severity of the punishment is proportionate to the severity of the crime precisely because it signals and communicates to the perp that severity. It is feedback, hence instructive. A just person already accepts such punishment as just. It is far better to focus on reform, but in order to do that, you first have to have a good understanding of what the law is all about. And I admit: our criminal justice system does need improvement and reform.
- fwipsy 3y ago
  I believe that the system is currently working, in that it does less harm through wrongful/excessive punishments than would be done by criminals against innocent people in its absence. There's room for improvement, of course.
Aerroon 3y ago
People from other jobs are potentially in jeopardy for negligence though. If a truck driver makes a mistake driving a truck they could very well go to prison. Also, judges can be malicious too.
- michaelt 3y ago
  Right but truck drivers aren't constantly dealing with people who are lying to get themselves out of trouble. And while all jobs include at least some element of dealing with people trying to deceive you, if I'm an embedded engineer dealing with a vendor overstating the low-temperature performance of their embedded compute module, the stakes are a lot lower.
  - interactivecode 3y ago
    The point is that when your job has an "larger than normal" impact on the course of someone's life you should not be able to ignore that responsibility. Responsibility should be matched with equal sized accountability. I'd rather have a system that occasionally let someone go free because of insufficient proof than occasionally have people be imprisoned when they are actually innocent.
  - tacocataco 3y ago
    "Right but truck drivers aren't constantly dealing with people who are lying to get themselves out of trouble." What do you think the dash cams are for?
eastbound 3y ago
People always apply for jobs. Even airplane pilot, where the pay isn’t as high as software developers, and where giant door-losing corporations put millions into making every accident pass as a pilot error, incurring a dozen years in jail. Heck, people even apply for the army, where, out of no fault of your own, you can die. They do this for the proper function of the society. And therefore, for proper function of society: - Judges should be exposed to penal jail sentences if an innocent goes to jail, - Judges should also be exposed to penal jail sentences in case they release a criminal sooner than the maximum sentence and they commit a new crime. When a criminal is released 18 times by judges, and they slaughter a dozen people on the 19th time, you know you’re in France. And that’s somewhere you don’t want to be.
- K0balt 3y ago
  Mmmmmmmmm idk. I’m with you on some liability for the conviction of innocent people, but that liability should also extend to juries. As far as being penalised for not predicting the future actions of an individual person, not so much. That would effectively mean that every person would be sentenced and required to serve the maximum penalty for any violation, even though those maximums were intended to be doled out to only the most egregious offenders. Perhaps much more granular and specific sentencing guidelines with objective qualifiers so that sentencing was more predictable?
  - lo_zamoyski 3y ago
    > I’m with you on some liability for the conviction of innocent people, but that liability should also extend to juries. You have to be careful here. Doing so can create perverse incentives that undermine justice. If a judge or a jury face such penalties, they will be inclined to reduce the penalty or feel compelled to find the defendant not guilty as a fearful precaution, even in cut and dry cases. And would you punish innocent jurors where unanimity is not required?
- LargeWu 3y ago
  I think a better way to phrase this is that judges should be punished in instances of gross negligence or malfeasance. An innocent person going to prison or early release in which a criminal commits another crime, on its own, does not necessarily imply this.
omgwtfbyobbq 3y ago
I agree and disagree. We should improve the system to make it resilient to individual failures, and we should place more pressure on individuals in positions of power to not make mistakes. I think a judge making a mistake this egregious should not be allowed to continue being a judge.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  > We should improve the system to make it resilient to individual failures This isn't a solution. It is a wish. Obviously, we all would like it to be the case that innocent people are never punished. But first, is the rate of false convictions of the innocent actually egregiously high? This article gives an example of one case, but it does not follow that we are facing high rates of false convictions, especially for serious crimes that carry serious penalties. Second, is there a way to reduce false convictions, especially in a way that doesn't comprise the system in some serious way? > I think a judge making a mistake this egregious should not be allowed to continue being a judge. Perhaps, perhaps not. You risk incentivizing behavior among judges that subverts the justice system.
  - TheCleric 3y ago
    I think the best data we have of this in the US is the exoneration rate of death penalty convictions, which is startlingly high. A study from 2014 found it to be around 4% (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111). 4% may sound low to some, but when people's live are on the line that's terribly high. If a plane had a 4% failure rate it would be considered a colossal failure.
  - wholinator2 3y ago
    I know i have seen more stories lately about innocent people being freed after newly analyzed DNA evidence. I think a good question is, how would we know if someone were wrongly convicted? What tells are there that the person the judge and lawyers said was guilty, that's now in prison, what could tell us they are innocent. Presumably there are tons of guilty people proclaim innocence every day to try to get out of their consequences. What separates them? There could be catastrophically high rates of innocent convictions and I'm not confident we would be aware of that
HenryBemis 3y ago
Going through the guy's 'CV' from the article, I guess one of the reasons the authorities never went "all the way to 11" to catch him, is that the harm he did was relatively 'small' - meaning of financial nature - he didn't physically hurt/murdered anyone. (I am not OK-ing what he did, I just think that if you got 100 killers out and about please catch them and the $200k guy will be caught sooner or later by some bureaucratic control).
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  His actions caused the real person to go to jail for 2 years.
Repulsion9513 3y ago
> would be hyper-cautious That's a desirable effect. Your argument is the very reason the 5th amendment exists. Making it easier to find someone guilty is a BAD thing, not a good thing.
- kenjackson 3y ago
  The goal should be truth. Otherwise the easiest way to make it hard to find someone guilty is to make it only confessions under no duress are admissible. And the hyper-cautious effect isn’t because of fear of getting it wrong. It’s fear of retaliation whether right or wrong.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  No one would take the job first. Being a public servant is already pretty thankless and doesn’t pay very well. Second, if they did take the job, they wouldn’t do anything, since the consequences of being wrong are so high, why take the chance? Public opinion would then flip the other way, and they are either a wheat stalk flowing with the wind or they quit.
- fwipsy 3y ago
  I agree! I don't want it to be easier. But I think parent comment's proposal would result in almost no convictions, even in crystal clear cases. Please read my comment more carefully instead of assuming I'm saying something I'm not.
vintermann 3y ago
How about we bring back juries, big and truly random ones (at least 12 people, not haggled over, not filtered). Then give the jury some options to sanction judges and lawyers for blatant bullshit. It doesn't have to be harsher than firing them. All legitimate government power is supposed to come from the people, I feel like that's often forgotten, especially when it comes to the least accountable branch of government.

by fwipsy 3y ago

Ekaros 3y ago

So it would be better. No innocent would go to prison. Abolishing system is valid option. If it is clearly failing it is not worth keeping.

slt2021 3y ago
[flagged]
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago
  Do you think no one reading this hasn't grown up there? Think before you speak.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    Nobody said that. Any the people who did grow up in unsafe areas generally don’t recommend it. It’s not a hot take.
- ruined 3y ago
  why do you say it's abolished there? it's my understanding that those areas are acutely suffering under the existing system.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
The perfect is the enemy of the good. The notion that if something isn't perfect, it must be abolished is, simply put, ridiculous. Trivially, if you have no criminal justice system, no innocent person would go to prison; it's as foolish as claiming there would be no poverty if there were no human beings. But crime would increase. The bulwark against those who do not live according to moral principles, who do not respect the law, would be removed, as such people respond only to the fear of punishment. And the law and the justice system are also instructive. Part of their purpose is to teach. You will not teach justice without being just, and that entails punishment. The severity of the punishment is proportionate to the severity of the crime precisely because it signals and communicates to the perp that severity. It is feedback, hence instructive. A just person already accepts such punishment as just. It is far better to focus on reform, but in order to do that, you first have to have a good understanding of what the law is all about. And I admit: our criminal justice system does need improvement and reform.
fwipsy 3y ago
I believe that the system is currently working, in that it does less harm through wrongful/excessive punishments than would be done by criminals against innocent people in its absence. There's room for improvement, of course.

Aerroon 3y ago

People from other jobs are potentially in jeopardy for negligence though. If a truck driver makes a mistake driving a truck they could very well go to prison. Also, judges can be malicious too.

michaelt 3y ago
Right but truck drivers aren't constantly dealing with people who are lying to get themselves out of trouble. And while all jobs include at least some element of dealing with people trying to deceive you, if I'm an embedded engineer dealing with a vendor overstating the low-temperature performance of their embedded compute module, the stakes are a lot lower.
- interactivecode 3y ago
  The point is that when your job has an "larger than normal" impact on the course of someone's life you should not be able to ignore that responsibility. Responsibility should be matched with equal sized accountability. I'd rather have a system that occasionally let someone go free because of insufficient proof than occasionally have people be imprisoned when they are actually innocent.
- tacocataco 3y ago
  "Right but truck drivers aren't constantly dealing with people who are lying to get themselves out of trouble." What do you think the dash cams are for?

eastbound 3y ago

People always apply for jobs. Even airplane pilot, where the pay isn’t as high as software developers, and where giant door-losing corporations put millions into making every accident pass as a pilot error, incurring a dozen years in jail. Heck, people even apply for the army, where, out of no fault of your own, you can die. They do this for the proper function of the society. And therefore, for proper function of society: - Judges should be exposed to penal jail sentences if an innocent goes to jail, - Judges should also be exposed to penal jail sentences in case they release a criminal sooner than the maximum sentence and they commit a new crime. When a criminal is released 18 times by judges, and they slaughter a dozen people on the 19th time, you know you’re in France. And that’s somewhere you don’t want to be.

K0balt 3y ago
Mmmmmmmmm idk. I’m with you on some liability for the conviction of innocent people, but that liability should also extend to juries. As far as being penalised for not predicting the future actions of an individual person, not so much. That would effectively mean that every person would be sentenced and required to serve the maximum penalty for any violation, even though those maximums were intended to be doled out to only the most egregious offenders. Perhaps much more granular and specific sentencing guidelines with objective qualifiers so that sentencing was more predictable?
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  > I’m with you on some liability for the conviction of innocent people, but that liability should also extend to juries. You have to be careful here. Doing so can create perverse incentives that undermine justice. If a judge or a jury face such penalties, they will be inclined to reduce the penalty or feel compelled to find the defendant not guilty as a fearful precaution, even in cut and dry cases. And would you punish innocent jurors where unanimity is not required?
LargeWu 3y ago
I think a better way to phrase this is that judges should be punished in instances of gross negligence or malfeasance. An innocent person going to prison or early release in which a criminal commits another crime, on its own, does not necessarily imply this.

omgwtfbyobbq 3y ago

I agree and disagree. We should improve the system to make it resilient to individual failures, and we should place more pressure on individuals in positions of power to not make mistakes. I think a judge making a mistake this egregious should not be allowed to continue being a judge.

lo_zamoyski 3y ago
> We should improve the system to make it resilient to individual failures This isn't a solution. It is a wish. Obviously, we all would like it to be the case that innocent people are never punished. But first, is the rate of false convictions of the innocent actually egregiously high? This article gives an example of one case, but it does not follow that we are facing high rates of false convictions, especially for serious crimes that carry serious penalties. Second, is there a way to reduce false convictions, especially in a way that doesn't comprise the system in some serious way? > I think a judge making a mistake this egregious should not be allowed to continue being a judge. Perhaps, perhaps not. You risk incentivizing behavior among judges that subverts the justice system.
- TheCleric 3y ago
  I think the best data we have of this in the US is the exoneration rate of death penalty convictions, which is startlingly high. A study from 2014 found it to be around 4% (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111 https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1306417111). 4% may sound low to some, but when people's live are on the line that's terribly high. If a plane had a 4% failure rate it would be considered a colossal failure.
- wholinator2 3y ago
  I know i have seen more stories lately about innocent people being freed after newly analyzed DNA evidence. I think a good question is, how would we know if someone were wrongly convicted? What tells are there that the person the judge and lawyers said was guilty, that's now in prison, what could tell us they are innocent. Presumably there are tons of guilty people proclaim innocence every day to try to get out of their consequences. What separates them? There could be catastrophically high rates of innocent convictions and I'm not confident we would be aware of that

HenryBemis 3y ago

Going through the guy's 'CV' from the article, I guess one of the reasons the authorities never went "all the way to 11" to catch him, is that the harm he did was relatively 'small' - meaning of financial nature - he didn't physically hurt/murdered anyone. (I am not OK-ing what he did, I just think that if you got 100 killers out and about please catch them and the $200k guy will be caught sooner or later by some bureaucratic control).

michaelmrose 3y ago
His actions caused the real person to go to jail for 2 years.

Repulsion9513 3y ago

> would be hyper-cautious That's a desirable effect. Your argument is the very reason the 5th amendment exists. Making it easier to find someone guilty is a BAD thing, not a good thing.

kenjackson 3y ago
The goal should be truth. Otherwise the easiest way to make it hard to find someone guilty is to make it only confessions under no duress are admissible. And the hyper-cautious effect isn’t because of fear of getting it wrong. It’s fear of retaliation whether right or wrong.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
No one would take the job first. Being a public servant is already pretty thankless and doesn’t pay very well. Second, if they did take the job, they wouldn’t do anything, since the consequences of being wrong are so high, why take the chance? Public opinion would then flip the other way, and they are either a wheat stalk flowing with the wind or they quit.
fwipsy 3y ago
I agree! I don't want it to be easier. But I think parent comment's proposal would result in almost no convictions, even in crystal clear cases. Please read my comment more carefully instead of assuming I'm saying something I'm not.

vintermann 3y ago

How about we bring back juries, big and truly random ones (at least 12 people, not haggled over, not filtered). Then give the jury some options to sanction judges and lawyers for blatant bullshit. It doesn't have to be harsher than firing them. All legitimate government power is supposed to come from the people, I feel like that's often forgotten, especially when it comes to the least accountable branch of government.