7 ms·

That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west. The worst part about the article is the fact that there is no fair

That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west. The worst part about the article is the fact that there is no fair trial in Russia. Imagine a fictitious world where everything is corrupt, but the legal system. It isn't a perfect place to live, but, you know that at the very least your freedom is protected, your contract if breached is remunerated etc. Imagine a fictitious world where everything is not corrupt, but the legal system is. In such place, one has no freedom, for out of spite perhaps, out of jealousy, out of greed, someone could simply send you to prison. 7 acquittals in 1000 cases, and even then 5 overturned, so practically only 2 people being acquitted in 1000 cases is a practical tyrannical state. In the west, at least, the legal system protects against corruption by itself not being corrupt. If such bastion of freedom fails, then the land is no longer free.

TylerE 14y ago
>That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west. Is it? I think it's hard to argue that it ISN'T. How else can you justify poor people getting 20+ year sentences for relatively minor crimes, while white collar criminals can steal MILLIONS, and get a slap on the wrist? When's the last time you saw a major celebrity or pro athlete actually A: Get convicted for something, and B: Serve real time?
- Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
  Why should a celebrity get convicted of something unless they have committed a crime? I think America may be a bit of an exception actually since you guys elect your judges. That sounds ridiculous to me. It is like electing your doctor or your engineers. Some things simply are best left to technocrats. That said, in the UK at least, you have the choice of five appeals before a final, conclusive say is given in your case. Take for example Assange, the Wikileaks founder. It is difficult to find a more political example. He went up to the highest court. That final hearing was held in public, as all hearings are, it was televised, again as all hearings are, you can read the judicial decision, as with all judicial decision. No one was corrupted. You can't corrupt them, because there is complete transparency. Now take the hacking scandal. At least 10 people have been imprisoned and are awaiting trial I think. Maddof is another example. We will see what comes out of Libor, etc. We don't live in a perfect world, but we are the closest to it I think. In regards to your point about 20+ year sentence for a relatively minor crime, I think you will find that the media often sensationalises things to get attention. If you delve into these cases, by for example, reading the judicial decision which are available to everyone, you will most probably find that the decision if not to your agreement, is reasonable and justified. To conclude with clearly showing that there is no comparison between America or the West and Russia, if you look at 1,000 cases, you are very likely to find way more non guilty verdicts than in 2 cases.
  - TylerE 14y ago
    Nope, not at all. Non-violent drug offenders can and do get 20+ year sentences in the US. Especially heroin and crack cocaine. There are some insane mandatory minimum sentences here.
    - woobar 14y ago
      How exactly mandatory minimum sentences prove that legal system is corrupt?
      - TylerE 14y ago
        Gross inconsistencies. Have a little crack on you? 5+ year minimum, quite possibly more, especially if it isn't your first time. Whereas the rich will pay some high-priced lawyer with connections, and get a plea deal, probably for probation, for just about anything short of murder.
        woobar 14y ago
        I think at best your argument proves that there is a problem with legislation. I.e. with the laws that treat white collar criminals not as hard as crack users. I don't know about unknown rich with connections. But a lot of celebrities got pretty harsh treatment. Michael Vick served more time than his co-defendants.
        smsm42 14y ago
        That proves the system is broken (and it is, the whole War on Drugs is America's worst mistake since Prohibition) but not that it is corrupt. To prove corruption, you need to prove that the outcome depends on something else than the (admittedly broken) law. Pointing out that the law gives unjustifiably harsh sentences does not advance this argument.
    - jmaygarden 14y ago
      Sentencing is a result of the legislative branch and not the judiciary. These sentences are often mandated by law. Judges have no legal leeway to reduce them. I believe the argument is whether the trial system is fair, and not the unfortunate reality that we elect morons because they are "tough on crime."
- LargeWu 14y ago
  Inequalities in sentencing are one matter. It is another thing entirely if trials are not fair. I think for the most part, western nations provide fair trials. Furthermore, corruption - at least in the US - is taken pretty seriously. Where as a matter of course one might offer a bribe to a policeman in certain countries, it's actually pretty rare here. And in the cases corruption does come to light, it almost always ends public service careers, even (especially?) for high ranking officials.
  - TylerE 14y ago
    I'd say they're fair if you can afford a good lawyer. If you can't, and have to take a public defender, you are, in most cases, screwed.
    - LargeWu 14y ago
      Whether the system is fair or not is orthogonal to the skill of the participants.
      - TylerE 14y ago
        I think you're completely missing the point. This is the system, and it isn't fair. The outcome of a criminal trial being strongly correlated with your bank balance is pretty much the definition of an unfair legal system.
        Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
        Is it correlated? At the end of the day 12 randomly selected people from the population decide whether the person is guilty or not guilty. How that system can be corrupted, even by the skills of persuasion, is beyond me. Some facts are simply facts and no gift of communication can change that. Lawyers are not magicians. Lawyers can't by simple force of intellect persuade the jury to acquit someone when the fact clearly show to any impartial reasonable observer, as normally is the case with a jury of 12 people, that the person has committed the crime. You might have a stronger argument in regards to how decisions are made as to which case is prosecuted, how much resources are allocated to gathering the facts to prosecute a case related to drugs as compared to a case related to financial fraud, but in my opinion, once the person charged is in court, I think there is no corruption at all.
- Daniel_Newby 14y ago
  > How else can you justify poor people getting 20+ year sentences for relatively minor crimes, ... Those laws are effectively a eugenics program to weed out low IQ and impulsivity. If you cannot figure out how to beat a cocaine rap or not knock over a gas station, boom, your peak reproductive years get spent in a single sex environment.
  - myth_drannon 14y ago
    Actually research shows that these people that spend years in jail have more children on average than people without criminal record. In addition the more years you spend in jail, the more reproductive you are. So the "eugenics program" will never work because the human evolution doesn't care about low IQ and impulsiveness .
    - eru 14y ago
      Interesting. Do you have sources for that research?
      - myth_drannon 14y ago
        Sorry, can't find it now. It's somewhat related to papers about "Dark Triad" traits.
    - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
      Right. I did not say it was enough, just that the goal certainly appears to be eugenic.
- janardanyri 14y ago
  There's a huge, huge difference between: a) a system in which paying a third party to spend their life understanding that system aids in better navigation of that system versus b) a system in which you must pay representatives of the system in order to engage with the system. Yes, in both situations, more resources will get you better results, but process matters. System A is a whole lot closer to redemption than System B.

TylerE 14y ago

>That may be so, but it is difficult to suggest that the legal system is corrupt in the west. Is it? I think it's hard to argue that it ISN'T. How else can you justify poor people getting 20+ year sentences for relatively minor crimes, while white collar criminals can steal MILLIONS, and get a slap on the wrist? When's the last time you saw a major celebrity or pro athlete actually A: Get convicted for something, and B: Serve real time?

Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
Why should a celebrity get convicted of something unless they have committed a crime? I think America may be a bit of an exception actually since you guys elect your judges. That sounds ridiculous to me. It is like electing your doctor or your engineers. Some things simply are best left to technocrats. That said, in the UK at least, you have the choice of five appeals before a final, conclusive say is given in your case. Take for example Assange, the Wikileaks founder. It is difficult to find a more political example. He went up to the highest court. That final hearing was held in public, as all hearings are, it was televised, again as all hearings are, you can read the judicial decision, as with all judicial decision. No one was corrupted. You can't corrupt them, because there is complete transparency. Now take the hacking scandal. At least 10 people have been imprisoned and are awaiting trial I think. Maddof is another example. We will see what comes out of Libor, etc. We don't live in a perfect world, but we are the closest to it I think. In regards to your point about 20+ year sentence for a relatively minor crime, I think you will find that the media often sensationalises things to get attention. If you delve into these cases, by for example, reading the judicial decision which are available to everyone, you will most probably find that the decision if not to your agreement, is reasonable and justified. To conclude with clearly showing that there is no comparison between America or the West and Russia, if you look at 1,000 cases, you are very likely to find way more non guilty verdicts than in 2 cases.
- TylerE 14y ago
  Nope, not at all. Non-violent drug offenders can and do get 20+ year sentences in the US. Especially heroin and crack cocaine. There are some insane mandatory minimum sentences here.
  - woobar 14y ago
    How exactly mandatory minimum sentences prove that legal system is corrupt?
    - TylerE 14y ago
      Gross inconsistencies. Have a little crack on you? 5+ year minimum, quite possibly more, especially if it isn't your first time. Whereas the rich will pay some high-priced lawyer with connections, and get a plea deal, probably for probation, for just about anything short of murder.
      - woobar 14y ago
        I think at best your argument proves that there is a problem with legislation. I.e. with the laws that treat white collar criminals not as hard as crack users. I don't know about unknown rich with connections. But a lot of celebrities got pretty harsh treatment. Michael Vick served more time than his co-defendants.
      - smsm42 14y ago
        That proves the system is broken (and it is, the whole War on Drugs is America's worst mistake since Prohibition) but not that it is corrupt. To prove corruption, you need to prove that the outcome depends on something else than the (admittedly broken) law. Pointing out that the law gives unjustifiably harsh sentences does not advance this argument.
  - jmaygarden 14y ago
    Sentencing is a result of the legislative branch and not the judiciary. These sentences are often mandated by law. Judges have no legal leeway to reduce them. I believe the argument is whether the trial system is fair, and not the unfortunate reality that we elect morons because they are "tough on crime."
LargeWu 14y ago
Inequalities in sentencing are one matter. It is another thing entirely if trials are not fair. I think for the most part, western nations provide fair trials. Furthermore, corruption - at least in the US - is taken pretty seriously. Where as a matter of course one might offer a bribe to a policeman in certain countries, it's actually pretty rare here. And in the cases corruption does come to light, it almost always ends public service careers, even (especially?) for high ranking officials.
- TylerE 14y ago
  I'd say they're fair if you can afford a good lawyer. If you can't, and have to take a public defender, you are, in most cases, screwed.
  - LargeWu 14y ago
    Whether the system is fair or not is orthogonal to the skill of the participants.
    - TylerE 14y ago
      I think you're completely missing the point. This is the system, and it isn't fair. The outcome of a criminal trial being strongly correlated with your bank balance is pretty much the definition of an unfair legal system.
      - Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
        Is it correlated? At the end of the day 12 randomly selected people from the population decide whether the person is guilty or not guilty. How that system can be corrupted, even by the skills of persuasion, is beyond me. Some facts are simply facts and no gift of communication can change that. Lawyers are not magicians. Lawyers can't by simple force of intellect persuade the jury to acquit someone when the fact clearly show to any impartial reasonable observer, as normally is the case with a jury of 12 people, that the person has committed the crime. You might have a stronger argument in regards to how decisions are made as to which case is prosecuted, how much resources are allocated to gathering the facts to prosecute a case related to drugs as compared to a case related to financial fraud, but in my opinion, once the person charged is in court, I think there is no corruption at all.
Daniel_Newby 14y ago
> How else can you justify poor people getting 20+ year sentences for relatively minor crimes, ... Those laws are effectively a eugenics program to weed out low IQ and impulsivity. If you cannot figure out how to beat a cocaine rap or not knock over a gas station, boom, your peak reproductive years get spent in a single sex environment.
- myth_drannon 14y ago
  Actually research shows that these people that spend years in jail have more children on average than people without criminal record. In addition the more years you spend in jail, the more reproductive you are. So the "eugenics program" will never work because the human evolution doesn't care about low IQ and impulsiveness .
  - eru 14y ago
    Interesting. Do you have sources for that research?
    - myth_drannon 14y ago
      Sorry, can't find it now. It's somewhat related to papers about "Dark Triad" traits.
  - Daniel_Newby 14y ago
    Right. I did not say it was enough, just that the goal certainly appears to be eugenic.
janardanyri 14y ago
There's a huge, huge difference between: a) a system in which paying a third party to spend their life understanding that system aids in better navigation of that system versus b) a system in which you must pay representatives of the system in order to engage with the system. Yes, in both situations, more resources will get you better results, but process matters. System A is a whole lot closer to redemption than System B.