4 ms·

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 int

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.

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.