5 ms·

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 elec

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."
jshowa 14y ago
> 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. Except for federal courts. All federal court judges are appointed by the president for life after confirmation from the senate. Only state courts have an election process, in some cases. > 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. Not all court hearings are televised, as you stated. The court hearing for repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was not televised. Most federal trials aren't televised. Also, just because you can read the judicial decision, doesn't mean that it wasn't a result of corruption during the trial. And once you get the decision, its not like you can fix it if something wasn't right in the decision. Complete transparency would only occur if all court cases were televised and unedited, giving the people access to all evidence.
- Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
  All court cases are held in public, so if you are interested in the full evidence, etc, you can attend the hearing in person. Moreover, all cases are recorded, so you can request a transcript of the whole process. Most judicial decisions however begin by a summary of the facts and the laws that were in question. Once you get a decision, you can fix it. You appeal it. If the court was wrong, then the higher court is likely to overturn it. The point about being able to read the judicial decision is that if the judge applied the law incorrectly, whether because he was corrupted, because he did not like the defendant or anything, if you are a trained lawyer, you can see that the law was applied incorrectly, so you appeal it. If that appeal is successful, the judge below would loose a huge amount of reputation, especially if it was blatantly obvious that he applied the law incorrectly. So no judge would do it. They are paid very handsomely. They probably practised as lawyers before becoming a judge so made quite a bit and therefore they have nothing to gain and everything to loose if they accept being corrupted.
  - TylerE 14y ago

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."

jshowa 14y ago

> 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. Except for federal courts. All federal court judges are appointed by the president for life after confirmation from the senate. Only state courts have an election process, in some cases. > 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. Not all court hearings are televised, as you stated. The court hearing for repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was not televised. Most federal trials aren't televised. Also, just because you can read the judicial decision, doesn't mean that it wasn't a result of corruption during the trial. And once you get the decision, its not like you can fix it if something wasn't right in the decision. Complete transparency would only occur if all court cases were televised and unedited, giving the people access to all evidence.

Andrew_Quentin 14y ago
All court cases are held in public, so if you are interested in the full evidence, etc, you can attend the hearing in person. Moreover, all cases are recorded, so you can request a transcript of the whole process. Most judicial decisions however begin by a summary of the facts and the laws that were in question. Once you get a decision, you can fix it. You appeal it. If the court was wrong, then the higher court is likely to overturn it. The point about being able to read the judicial decision is that if the judge applied the law incorrectly, whether because he was corrupted, because he did not like the defendant or anything, if you are a trained lawyer, you can see that the law was applied incorrectly, so you appeal it. If that appeal is successful, the judge below would loose a huge amount of reputation, especially if it was blatantly obvious that he applied the law incorrectly. So no judge would do it. They are paid very handsomely. They probably practised as lawyers before becoming a judge so made quite a bit and therefore they have nothing to gain and everything to loose if they accept being corrupted.
- TylerE 14y ago