• fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 hours ago

      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.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        13 hours ago

        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.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 hours ago

          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.