Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smeeprocket]

I do not have the kind of faith in people that you have.

I have very very little faith in people, which is why I believe in codified law more than in juries (or for that matter powerful elected judges).

but judge versus jury, it seems like one powerful person making all the decisions is rather foolish.

I know south africa nixxed juries because they were inherently racist, (and they certainly are here,) but judges could easily be just as racist. Or sexist, or any number of awful things.

At least with 12 people you get an average, and the defense and prosecution can haggle a bit over who is on the jury.

Not that it helped Eric Garner. Despite his murdering being on video tape. But this is a problem with the system as a whole, and isolating judgement to one person won't fix it.

Humans will always have to interpret the law, and its intent for trials. Humans are flawed, we are working with an inherently flawed system. I just prefer the playing field for that system is level.

[XXSockXX]

Humans will always have to interpret the law, and its intent for trials. Humans are flawed, we are working with an inherently flawed system. I just prefer the playing field for that system is level.

Well, if your laws are tightly codified in detail, there is less wiggle room for interpretation. (Our laws are famously long and complicated, so you need experts to understand them, not ordinary people like in juries. But there is less room for human error and judges don't usually get to decide as much as they do in the US.)

[smeeprocket]

Humans will always have to interpret the law, and its intent for trials. Humans are flawed, we are working with an inherently flawed system. I just prefer the playing field for that system is level.

Well, if your laws are tightly codified in detail, there is less wiggle room for interpretation. (Our laws are famously long and complicated, so you need experts to understand them, not ordinary people like in juries. But there is less room for human error and judges don't usually get to decide as much as they do in the US.)

I think tighter laws isn't necessarily a good thing. Most cases needed to be taken on an individual level. It seems like the tighter laws we have, 10/20/life for gun violations, minimum sentencing, etc just causes problems and puts even more people in jail for ridiculous lengths of time.

[MDFification]

Tighter codified laws just lead to loopholes. What most people don't realize is that our current system (the British Common Law and descendants) is based upon the spirit as opposed to the letter of the law.

[smeeprocket]

The spirit is preferable. The downside being faulty interpretation.

But calculating for every possible detail of each crime would never work. Loopholes and just as much unfair prosecution.

[XXSockXX]

Well, I think I obviously don't have the vocabulary (or the legal expertise) to say much about the intricacies of Common Law vs. Civil Law, so I'm just gonna say that I find the US legal system pretty weird and in need of some kind of overhaul.

[smeeprocket]

Well, I think I obviously don't have the vocabulary (or the legal expertise) to say much about the intricacies of Common Law vs. Civil Law, so I'm just gonna say that I find the US legal system pretty weird and in need of some kind of overhaul.

How much do you know about the US legal system, really?

[Helgoland]

How much do you know about civil law?

It's weird, really: Law systems are something one hardly ever thinks about, but from past discussions of the same topic I've learned that people have some very strong, deep-seated opinions of them. You'll find no continental European here who'd be comfortable with juries, and no American who'd want to abolish them.

[smeeprocket]

Europe... doesn't have juries? I thought only South Africa did that.

[XXSockXX]

Well, I think I obviously don't have the vocabulary (or the legal expertise) to say much about the intricacies of Common Law vs. Civil Law, so I'm just gonna say that I find the US legal system pretty weird and in need of some kind of overhaul.

How much do you know about the US legal system, really?

Enough to not like it: Puts huge amounts of people in jail (often for little reason), has the death penalty and other relatively drastic punishments, has case law, has juries, has elected judges and sometimes elected prosecutors.

You'll find no continental European here who'd be comfortable with juries, and no American who'd want to abolish them.

Yeah, this.

[Helgoland]

Europe... doesn't have juries? I thought only South Africa did that.

QED, my dear

[Sheb]

Actually, France and Belgium have juries, but only for some of the gravest crimes.

Other aspects that Europeans would find disturbing include elected judges and prosecutors, the fact that almost every case is settled via plea bargain (aka, without trial) and the incredibly strict mandatory sentencing laws.

[smeeprocket]

Well, I think I obviously don't have the vocabulary (or the legal expertise) to say much about the intricacies of Common Law vs. Civil Law, so I'm just gonna say that I find the US legal system pretty weird and in need of some kind of overhaul.

How much do you know about the US legal system, really?

Enough to not like it: Puts huge amounts of people in jail (often for little reason), has the death penalty and other relatively drastic punishments, has case law, has juries, has elected judges and sometimes elected prosecutors.

You'll find no continental European here who'd be comfortable with juries, and no American who'd want to abolish them.

Yeah, this.

Maybe you're not familiar with US judges, but the juries are a better alternative to the human filth that occupy those positions.

Also, no one actually votes for them, as it's hard to get details on their cases. I just skip voting for them because I don't know which way to vote, unless the judge did something especially heinous. My mom just votes them all back in.

Hell, I was reading about a clinically insane judge that is constantly having hysterical mental breakdowns in court that keeps getting reelected because the local democratic party just tells everyone to re-vote in dems and she's on the list.

Also there was that judge that was jerking it with a penis pump during trials for years before he finally got in trouble over it.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Other aspects that Europeans would find disturbing include elected judges and prosecutors, the fact that almost every case is settled via plea bargain (aka, without trial) and the incredibly strict mandatory sentencing laws.

Pleas are only common in federal trials. They're bad, but there would also be chaos without it, because the federal court system is already stretched to capacity by the minority of trials that don't end in pleas.

[smeeprocket]

Look, it's bad, but in our defense, in Italy, you can be retried after being found innocent.

There's no excuse for the death penalty. That's just barbaric. My state loves it, though not quite as much as Texas. I continue to be shocked that the supreme court changed their mind on that because of one horrific crime, I mean, they are judges, they surely should have grasped what kind of truly deranged depravity humans can commit. It shouldn't have changed their stance.

But juries are like the most important part of the process, (that all the smart people get out of.)

I think the solutions that work in europe wouldn't work here. they would be a round peg for a square hole.