You’re not there to dispense justice. You’re there to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.
Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about Jury Nullification, a refusal to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that it would be unjust, despite the defendant’s obvious guilt.
This pretty much reduces the court process to a popularity contest - how does the jury “feel” about the defendant, what are the “vibes” of the circumstances before them.
Jurors determine guilt, and judges determine punishments. The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
Lol…phew…omg…phew. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today.
The US justice system is easily one of the most corrupt in history at this point. It’s honestly kind of disturbing someone can make a statement like that with a straight face.
The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
Do you have some examples of justice systems which do not separate these concerns and produce better outcomes? If not, your comment is just hyperbole.
There’s simply not a “just” system of laws. I’m not an anarchist or anything, but trying to pretend the US justice system is more or less fair than the things that came before it, or contemporary systems in other countries is pure fantasy.
Might makes right has always been the way with humans, and I think it will always be the way with humans.
Anyone who works in law will tell you that justice is pretty thin to the ground.
I think you’ve misconstrued my position though. I’m not saying the current system is fine, merely that the role of jurors is to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against them, and the role of the judge is to determine the appropriate punishment, and that this separation of duties is the best structure we have to mitigate corruption.
I’m not saying there’s no corruption, merely that allowing a jury to determine whether a defendant should be punished despite their guilt is tantamount to corruption. If a jury can determine penalties then the whole court process is basically a popularity contest.
A few months ago, I would’ve told you that I’m holding to the belief that might doesn’t make right and that no one is above the law. However, recent events have demonstrated that more than half the voting public prefer a system where the law does not apply to wealthy nor powerful people. I’m astonished, but apparently my views are not represented amongst the population generally. It seems that in the current era there is no denying that there is a class of people to whom the law does not apply.
Ok we are in line as far as our thinking goes…now chew on this…60 percent of Americans can’t read above a 6th grade level. Those are your peers. Do you really want someone that struggles with The Hunger Games to decide a life or death case?
I just hope I’m never put to trial. Facts simply don’t matter any more and theater wins.
Dude your last sentence was the cherry garnish in a big cup of government Kool aid.
A just system wouldn’t have 98% of its convictions arriving out of plea deals.
A just system wouldn’t jail a dude for stealing bread from a company that steals money from all of its employees. Employees that are already so underpaid, that they qualify for food stamps, that largely get spent at the same damn company.
60,000 Americans die every year because of the insurance industry, but how many oligarchs were brought to justice? How many oligarchs were arrested for raping children on Epstein’s island? How many oligarchs were arrested for funding Israel’s genocide of Gaza? How many oligarchs were arrested for the massive tax evasion revealed from the Panama papers???
Justice that only punches down is not justice. If our system will not hold the wealthy accountable for their crimes against humanity then our system is utterly rotten
A better judicial system, one where it implicitly illegal for those with money to receive preferential treatment. And one where victimless crimes built on abstract ideals of abstinence only moralism dont ruin the lives of marginalized people while wealthy privileged individuals engage in these same behaviors with impunity, and one where qualified immunity isn’t grossly abused to avoid consequence for a militarized police force and portray a fantasy image tjat police generally always have a pristine moral compass and aren’t just flawed human beings with a propensity to abuse their power in a system with so many unjust laws that are designed to favor those with privilege and wealth.
How about just that for starters and i will get back to you for any further improvements.
This sounds like a very just system but how can it be achieved? How would you restructure the existing system to achieve these outcomes?
The comment I originally responded to suggested that juries could just dispense justice based on the vibe of the case before them. IMO such a system would be more or less guaranteed to fail to produce any of the outcomes on your list.
Maybe they should fix the justice system if they want juries to actually act like they’re intended to.
But they won’t, billionaires, CEOs, business execs, and other parasites will continue to do what they like and harm who they like with a slap on the wrist at most.
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
And it’s not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in.
But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check
You said intentional.
It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in
Perhaps, but if it’s ever used to support justice then it’s inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.
A jury’s role is to determine whether a defendant committed the acts of which they are charged.
Allowing a jury to determine whether the law ought to apply to a given defendant undermines the judicial system. Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?
That’s not really how jury’s work though.
You’re not there to dispense justice. You’re there to decide whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against him.
Someone will be along in a moment to tell us all about Jury Nullification, a refusal to find the defendant guilty on the grounds that it would be unjust, despite the defendant’s obvious guilt.
This pretty much reduces the court process to a popularity contest - how does the jury “feel” about the defendant, what are the “vibes” of the circumstances before them.
Jurors determine guilt, and judges determine punishments. The separation of these concerns is the best way we have found to mitigate corruption since the advent of written laws. The outcome of a specific case may be unjust, but the system produces the fewest unjust outcomes.
Lol…phew…omg…phew. Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh today.
The US justice system is easily one of the most corrupt in history at this point. It’s honestly kind of disturbing someone can make a statement like that with a straight face.
Do you have some examples of justice systems which do not separate these concerns and produce better outcomes? If not, your comment is just hyperbole.
There’s simply not a “just” system of laws. I’m not an anarchist or anything, but trying to pretend the US justice system is more or less fair than the things that came before it, or contemporary systems in other countries is pure fantasy.
Might makes right has always been the way with humans, and I think it will always be the way with humans.
I pretty much agree with you on all points.
Anyone who works in law will tell you that justice is pretty thin to the ground.
I think you’ve misconstrued my position though. I’m not saying the current system is fine, merely that the role of jurors is to determine whether the defendant is guilty of the charges against them, and the role of the judge is to determine the appropriate punishment, and that this separation of duties is the best structure we have to mitigate corruption.
I’m not saying there’s no corruption, merely that allowing a jury to determine whether a defendant should be punished despite their guilt is tantamount to corruption. If a jury can determine penalties then the whole court process is basically a popularity contest.
A few months ago, I would’ve told you that I’m holding to the belief that might doesn’t make right and that no one is above the law. However, recent events have demonstrated that more than half the voting public prefer a system where the law does not apply to wealthy nor powerful people. I’m astonished, but apparently my views are not represented amongst the population generally. It seems that in the current era there is no denying that there is a class of people to whom the law does not apply.
Ok we are in line as far as our thinking goes…now chew on this…60 percent of Americans can’t read above a 6th grade level. Those are your peers. Do you really want someone that struggles with The Hunger Games to decide a life or death case?
I just hope I’m never put to trial. Facts simply don’t matter any more and theater wins.
and how exactly is a jury deciding about someone’s fate not already a popularity contest?
Dude your last sentence was the cherry garnish in a big cup of government Kool aid.
A just system wouldn’t have 98% of its convictions arriving out of plea deals.
A just system wouldn’t jail a dude for stealing bread from a company that steals money from all of its employees. Employees that are already so underpaid, that they qualify for food stamps, that largely get spent at the same damn company.
I never said the system was just.
Merely pointing out that separating the finding of guilt from the determination of punishment is the best way we have to mitigate corruption.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better system.
60,000 Americans die every year because of the insurance industry, but how many oligarchs were brought to justice? How many oligarchs were arrested for raping children on Epstein’s island? How many oligarchs were arrested for funding Israel’s genocide of Gaza? How many oligarchs were arrested for the massive tax evasion revealed from the Panama papers???
Justice that only punches down is not justice. If our system will not hold the wealthy accountable for their crimes against humanity then our system is utterly rotten
Everything you said is true, but it doesn’t really contradict my point.
The current system is terrible, but it’s better than having a jury of laypeople make up the law based on the vibe of the case.
I look forward to hearing your suggestions for a better judicial system.
A better judicial system, one where it implicitly illegal for those with money to receive preferential treatment. And one where victimless crimes built on abstract ideals of abstinence only moralism dont ruin the lives of marginalized people while wealthy privileged individuals engage in these same behaviors with impunity, and one where qualified immunity isn’t grossly abused to avoid consequence for a militarized police force and portray a fantasy image tjat police generally always have a pristine moral compass and aren’t just flawed human beings with a propensity to abuse their power in a system with so many unjust laws that are designed to favor those with privilege and wealth.
How about just that for starters and i will get back to you for any further improvements.
This sounds like a very just system but how can it be achieved? How would you restructure the existing system to achieve these outcomes?
The comment I originally responded to suggested that juries could just dispense justice based on the vibe of the case before them. IMO such a system would be more or less guaranteed to fail to produce any of the outcomes on your list.
Maybe they should fix the justice system if they want juries to actually act like they’re intended to.
But they won’t, billionaires, CEOs, business execs, and other parasites will continue to do what they like and harm who they like with a slap on the wrist at most.
Who is “they” and how might they “fix” the justice system ?
More than half of American voters just chose to subvert the already ineffective legal system, to install a corrupt felon as dictator.
Are you proposing that allowing a jury of peers drawn from this public ought to be able to make up the law based on the vibe of cases before them ?
The oligarchs that own the country.
I’m proposing that the inherent protections the judicial system gives people be used to protect Luigi.
Justice is dead so long as billionaires can cause immeasurable death and suffering without repercussions.
You’re operating under the incorrect assumption that the public can control the law.
If that were the case you’d be right. But as of right now, this is the only check on their power. And it is an intentional check. The 2A was put in place to fight tyrants if it came to it, and it is quickly coming to it.
Like the right to an attorney? Sure.
Jury nullification is not an “intentional feature” of the justice process. It’s corruption.
I said inherent, not intentional.
And it’s not inherently corrupt. It can be used as a check against immoral law, or it can be used to refuse justice to just law. It’s entirely based on the case it’s used in.
You said intentional.
Perhaps, but if it’s ever used to support justice then it’s inevitable that it would also be used to undermine justice.
A jury’s role is to determine whether a defendant committed the acts of which they are charged.
Allowing a jury to determine whether the law ought to apply to a given defendant undermines the judicial system. Why bother having laws if you can simply convene a jury of citizens to determine an appropriate punishment?