Print

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

[Maximum Spin]

I still don't know why you'd want jurors rather than professional judges.

Because ultimately the purpose of our court system, however badly it usually achieves this, is to yield justice in the eyes of citizens, not law as propounded by judges. That's why the right to trial by jury of your peers was put in the Constitution: your peers may be dicks, but judges definitely are.

[Sheb]

Why would judges be any more dickish than peers? Although you do elect your judges, which seems equally dumb to me.

[EnigmaticHat]

Depends on the state, thankfully.

[Reelya]

Why would judges be any more dickish than peers? Although you do elect your judges, which seems equally dumb to me.

It goes back to the reason this was fought for in the first place, abuses of power. Peers and judges may be equally dicks, but judges are dicks with the power of life and death over people. You don't want that unaccountable since that leads to tyranny.

One of the core points however, is that the system of judges is inherently tied in with the legal / policing system, and in most cases, that means they're naturally allied with the prosecution. Defense attorneys are often portrayed as the lone wolf / outsiders for a reason - because they are. The judges represent the prosecution, because the system is built around prosecution. Hence the call for outsiders to make the call and not people pushed up by the same system that's designed to find you guilty.

A notable example is Japan, which doesn't have a traditional jury system, and has a 99.9% conviction rate. In that system, if you enter a courtroom it's a goddamn miracle if they find you innocent. Hence, nobody wants to be a defense attorney there, and the conviction rate is so high that prosecutors feel their entire career will be ruined if they lose even one case. So they pull out all the stops including torture and threats of torture to force confessions, which they exact for 95% of people who are arrested. That's what non-jury court systems tend to morph into: bureaucratic rubber stamps for handing out punishments to as many people who have entered the legal system as possible.

[martinuzz]

Why would judges be any more dickish than peers? Although you do elect your judges, which seems equally dumb to me.

This. It pollutes the separation of power, it turns the legal power into a political power

[Sheb]

Well, I'm glad you taught me our court system is a bureaucratic rubber stamp Reelya.

[Reelya]

Well, I'm glad you taught me our court system is a bureaucratic rubber stamp Reelya.

Most advanced nations that don't have juries have "lay judges" instead which serve the same purpose. Again, it's a part of the checks and balances system by bringing in someone from outside who has no stake in the existing system.

The point is, virtually all legal systems recognize the biases that are inherent in having the court system be self-regulating, since the goal of the system as whole is to move people through a mill from arrest to sentencing to prison. Police, prosecutors, courts and prison are all supposed to do their jobs entirely independently of each other, but that never happens in practice. By their nature it evolves into an industry where each stage does it's best to work with the other stages to optimize e.g. get as many convictions as possible. That's why almost every advanced nation has systems in place to throw a spanner in the works by getting non-system-trained lay people involved in the critical decision-making stage, which is the courtroom. If you don't externally regulate it, it devolves into an industry that solely exists to fill prisons.

[martinuzz]

Over here, judges are appointed by the government, but the government does have to pick them from a list of pre-assessed candidates. The assessment is done by an independent, non-political committee of both law professionals and laymen.

Judges are appointed for 'life' (they are forced to retire at age 70, a few years later than official national retirement age). This benefits their impartiality, because they need not fear losing their job.

To further protect the judges' impartiality, there are many grounds on which a judge can be forcibly substituted in a court case. For instance, if the defense has reasonable grounds that suggest the judge has a political or religious engagement that could influence his perception of the defendant's case, the defense can ask the court to substitute the judge with another judge. In fact, reasonable suspicion of any circumstances that could damage the judge's impartiality can be a ground for substitution.

So a situation like in the US, where there are genuine worries about the SCJ appointments for things like LGBT+ rights, will not easily occur here. A judge that has outspoken views on the topic would just be substituted by another judge in all cases concerning the topic.

EDIT: We don't have juries, at all.

[Sheb]

Well, I'm glad you taught me our court system is a bureaucratic rubber stamp Reelya.

Most advanced nations that don't have juries have "lay judges" instead which serve the same purpose. Again, it's a part of the checks and balances system by bringing in someone from outside who has no stake in the existing system.

The point is, virtually all legal systems recognize the biases that are inherent in having the court system be self-regulating, since the goal of the system as whole is to move people through a mill from arrest to sentencing to prison. Police, prosecutors, courts and prison are all supposed to do their jobs entirely independently of each other, but that never happens in practice. By their nature it evolves into an industry where each stage does it's best to work with the other stages to optimize e.g. get as many convictions as possible. That's why almost every advanced nation has systems in place to throw a spanner in the works by getting non-system-trained lay people involved in the critical decision-making stage, which is the courtroom. If you don't externally regulate it, it devolves into an industry that solely exists to fill prisons.

Sorry, but no. Plenty of countries don't have those either, actually most of the one with a Napoleonic law tradition. France, Belgium, the Netherlands are all exemple.

[Reelya]

https://about-france.com/french-legal-system.htm

The most serious criminal offences, notably murder and rape, will be referred to a Cour d'Assises, or Assize court, where they will tried by jury.

In France, a defendant is entitled to a jury trial only when prosecuted for a felony (crime in French) that is an offence which may bring least 15 years' imprisonment (for natural persons) or a fine of €75,000 (for legal persons). The only court that tries by jury is the cour d'assises, in which three professional judges sit together with six or nine jurors. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority (six or eight votes).

Which would actually dissuade them from completely throwing the book at you, to avoid having to give you a jury trial. I'm wondering if the system disproportionately charges people in France with crimes that would give 12-14 years

Belgium, in common with a number of European civil law jurisdictions, retains the trial by jury through the Court of Assize for serious criminal cases and for political crimes and for press delicts (except those based on racism or xenophobia), and for crimes of international law, such as genocide and crime against humanity.

Also:

https://www.justlanded.com/english/France/Articles/Culture/Legal-System

France doesn’t have a jury system (abolished in 1941) but a mixed tribunal made up of six lay judges and three professional judges, with convictions decided by a two-thirds majority. However, in the cour d’assises (see below), nine ordinary citizens make up a jury populaire.

So, if you're not covered by a jury in France then you probably get lay judges, like I said. In any case, giving too much power to career judges is seen as enough of an issue that they have the professionals outnumbered 2:1 by amateurs in the lay judge system. Notice that if all the lay judges agree, then the professional judges have no say in the matter, and even if all professional judges agree to convict, they cannot win if a majority of the lay judges disagree with them. This was clearly set up deliberately.

[Culise]

Different situation. You don't get arrested for saying you know about jury nullification during selection. You can be arrested for contempt of court once you're actually on the jury, for pretty much any wingnut reason the judge thinks up. Basically, courtrooms are dangerous places and you should stay as far away from them as possible.

In addition, that article itself even comes out and says that it's a very exceptional circumstance; saying you can be arrested and citing a case so exceptional its like hasn't occurred in 300 years is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the idea that you can get arrested just by mentioning those two magic words during a different process.  The article doesn't also go into very significant detail.  For one thing, all charges against Laura Kriho were dropped in 2000 and her conviction and fine overturned, albeit after several years of appeals.  For another, she failed to mention during voir dire for a trial on possession, that she herself had been arrested for possession and that she actively supported the legalization of marijuana; it was ultimately found, among other things, that the prosecution had basically screwed up royally in voir dire by failing to ask with sufficient specificity regarding the matter, and thus she could not be confirmed to have actively lied during voir dire.  Remember, she wasn't just charged with contempt of court for mentioning jury nullification, but rather with contempt of court for intentionally seeking to get on the jury in order to break the system: it's the flip side of a person intentionally trying to get on a jury to "hang 'em all" regardless of the facts of the case. 

I'm also suspicious about Japan being cited as a "notable example" of non-jury trials.  Japan is, after all, well-known to have exceptionally high conviction rates by Western standards, just as the US has rather low conviction rates.  I apologize, but I would prefer to see some evidence how Japan's exceptionally-high conviction rates signify the fundamental corruption of France or Belgium's inquisitorial systems.  As well, don't forget that conviction rates only apply to cases that actually go to trial; if only cases that the prosecutors' office is certain of go to trial, conviction rates will be much higher than in less discriminating jurisdictions. 

[Paxiecrunchle]

So what I am getting from this is, that if say I am ordered onto a jury make it clear that I have desire to have anything to do with the case, disagree with both the ethicacy of the law in question and its punishments but still think someone is guilty of violating an unjust law[say for an example a law forcing people to kill certain animal species if caught] for voicing my opinion and saying that I belive in jury nullification as well etc.
That I can be arrested for 'contempt of court' which [in this sort of scenario] designed to ''net'' people as those who have only been charged with ''resisting arrest'' as a solo charge. That is too say at almst any moment with the way the jury system is set up I could be sucked Into someone elses trial and rapidly find myself faced with http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ToBeLawfulOrGood ....am I understanding the American system right or have I missed something?

[hector13]

Paul Manafort and Rick Gates face as yet unknown tax fraud charges in the Mueller investigation.

[Culise]

So what I am getting from this is, that if say I am ordered onto a jury make it clear that I have desire to have anything to do with the case, disagree with both the ethicacy of the law in question and its punishments but still think someone is guilty of violating an unjust law[say for an example a law forcing people to kill certain animal species if caught] for voicing my opinion and saying that I belive in jury nullification as well etc.
That I can be arrested for 'contempt of court' which [in this sort of scenario] designed to ''net'' people as those who have only been charged with ''resisting arrest'' as a solo charge. That is too say at almst any moment with the way the jury system is set up I could be sucked Into someone elses trial and rapidly find myself faced with http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ToBeLawfulOrGood ....am I understanding the American system right or have I missed something?

If they let you on the jury and you've been very up-front during the selection process that you believe the law itself is fundamentally unjust, the prosecutor is cracked in the head for not issuing any sort of challenge, preemptory or for cause, but I'd be surprised if they can make any charges stick.  If you intentionally kept it hidden in order to scupper the proceedings, then they'll (try to) go after you for lying during the selection process. 

The idea is that you don't change laws in a court of law; you change them through the democratic process at the ballot box.  I personally am unsure the law should be allowed to be held hostage by one person with an axe to grind, but jury nullification is ultimately a tool that may be useful in the right circumstances.  Like any tool, it can be used for "good" or "evil", insofar as either can be asserted in a court of law (read: in accordance with and in opposition to my firmly-held moral views).  It just so happens that the most common cases I tend to recall tend to be things like "no jury'll convict a white man for killing a black man," which is likely a significant contributing factor to my cynicism regarding the matter; the Fugitive Slave Law was quite long ago and far away.

[smjjames]

I wish the title space for the thread was at least twice as long sometimes.

They're charged with tax fraud (and not paying taxes), money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the US, and false statements. This is all in the context of when Manafort worked with Yanukovich (that former Ukranian PM who fled into Russia) and then some.

None of it appears to be in the context of Trump's campaign though, I guess this is what Trump meant by that he was vindicated, for now at least. The unsealed indictment if anybody is curious.