4 ms·

America has systematically stripped judges of their authority to make judgements. This was done partly to ramp up sentencing due to fear of crime, and partly to

by PaulAJ 12y ago

America has systematically stripped judges of their authority to make judgements. This was done partly to ramp up sentencing due to fear of crime, and partly to make justice more even-handed. The latter is not an unreasonable goal; skin colour is well known for biasing all sorts of people, and other things can do too: http://www.economist.com/node/18557594 http://www.economist.com/node/18557594 Unfortunately this power of arbitrary judgement has not gone away. Instead it has been handed to prosecutors. In the past, if the judge thought a prosecutor was unfairly throwing the book at a felon then he or she could hand down a sentence in line with the facts rather than the charge sheet. Now this is not possible. Its up to the prosecutors to decide how long the charge sheet is, and its the charge sheet that determines the sentence.

cmdrfred 12y ago
Judges have also been known to threaten anyone with jail who suggests jury nullification is a possibility. It seems pretty clear that it was the sort of thing the founding fathers intended when the created the system, but never the less if it takes away from the judges and prosecutors power they will fight it tooth and nail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unite...
- mellavora 12y ago
  Agreed. Part of the purpose of a trial by a jury of your peers in your own state of residence is that the jury is to decide if the law is fair, or fairly applied.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  I'm sorry, but that's a rather inaccurate view as to the justification for jury nullification. It is not a thing that's directly provided for in the law, it's a confluence of two legal principles: juries can't be held liable for their decisions, and the prohibition against double jeopardy. There's also the problem that that when people are told about nullification, they consider evidence less than they otherwise would. In other words, i'd argue that there are some very good reasons for this setup, as inconsistent and illogical as it sounds. Great video that explains this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ

by PaulAJ 12y ago

cmdrfred 12y ago

Judges have also been known to threaten anyone with jail who suggests jury nullification is a possibility. It seems pretty clear that it was the sort of thing the founding fathers intended when the created the system, but never the less if it takes away from the judges and prosecutors power they will fight it tooth and nail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_Unite...

mellavora 12y ago
Agreed. Part of the purpose of a trial by a jury of your peers in your own state of residence is that the jury is to decide if the law is fair, or fairly applied.
Karunamon 12y ago
I'm sorry, but that's a rather inaccurate view as to the justification for jury nullification. It is not a thing that's directly provided for in the law, it's a confluence of two legal principles: juries can't be held liable for their decisions, and the prohibition against double jeopardy. There's also the problem that that when people are told about nullification, they consider evidence less than they otherwise would. In other words, i'd argue that there are some very good reasons for this setup, as inconsistent and illogical as it sounds. Great video that explains this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqH_Y1TupoQ