Hey Joe

[TT]

Where u going with that gun in your hand?

Ooops, sorry...what I really wanted to ask is if it's normal in USA that
prosecution brings all their witnesses first...and only after that
defence witnesses take the stand?

(Cause that's what happens in MJ case. Today we saw a bunch of defence
witnesses who really have not helped, prosecution didn't even bother to
cross examine first 2...)

Thanks in advance for free legal advice.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Oct 24, 7:39 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> Where u going with that gun in your hand?
>
> Ooops, sorry...what I really wanted to ask is if it's normal in USA that
> prosecution brings all their witnesses first...and only after that
> defence witnesses take the stand?
>

This is standard not just in the United States, but in all countries
that share the Common Law tradition (inherited from England). The
prosecution (or plaintiff in a civil case) goes first, followed by the
defense. If the defense thinks the prosecution's (or plaintiff's) case
was too weak to pass muster, it can ask the judge to grant judgment in
favor of the defense without having to present any witnesses at all.
After the defense's case is concluded, the prosecution/plaintiff
normally is entitled to present rebuttal witnesses to address new
matters first raised by the defense's witnesses.

If a trial has two separate phases (guilt/penalty in a criminal case,
or liability/damages in a civil case), each side will present its case
in the first phase before the trial moves to the second phase.

[number_six]

The OP caught his old lady messin' 'round with another man?

TT, in addition to Joe's explanation above, also note that in closing
arguments in a criminal case, the prosecution gets the last word
because they bear the burden of proof. However, opening and closing
arguments are *not* evidence.

[DavidW]

Sounds like an arbitrary reason. You can just as easily argue that for the same
reason the defence should get the advantage of the last word.

What I've always found crazy about the U.S. is that state prosecutors and some
judges are elected. If you want to corrupt a system there's no better way than
to elect its officials.

[number_six]

We can no more banish corruption from human affairs than we can banish
GOAT debates from RST.

That said, I don't share your premise about the best way to contain
corruption. I favor more accountability, not less. The corruption of
*unelected* officials makes for a harrowing tale indeed -- and they
are harder to remove.

[Javier González]

I believe it depends on what the official is expected to do. Some
officials should be very attuned to what their constituency wants,
e.g. a Mayor. A prosecutor? Bordeline. A judge? Aw hellz naw.

[number_six]

In seeking the right balance between accountability and independence,
there's a significant distinction between a trial court judge and an
appellate judge.

In historical perspective, the impetus for the election of trial court
judges -- rather than their appointment by elites -- becomes clearer.

[Javier González]

I don't know... you have to toe the line between special interests and
pandering to the crowd, both instead of dispensing the intended
justice. Dammit!

[DavidW]

No prosecutors or judges are elected in Australia and I'm not aware of a single
instance of corruption involving any of them in the country's history. There
probably are some, but I haven't heard of them. OTOH in the U.S. it's so obvious
that you will get instances of cashed-up inividuals or companies donating to
election campaigns in exchange for favours in the justice system. It's all set
up to invite such corruption.

[number_six]

There's a reflexive, pro forma quality to your lack of confidence in
the American people.

Your lack of faith in the *Australian* people, however, is
interesting. I'd have thought -- given the numbers of Australia's
early Anglo-Celtic stock who followed the black velvet band, so to
speak -- that you had a fighting chance to understand the antecedents
of this type of reform. Perhaps I was wrong.

[DavidW]

Not really. This sort of corruption comes up in umpteen books, films and TV
shows. They might be fiction, but art imitates life to a certain extent and the
sheer volume of examples suggests there must be truth in it. Even a DA
discussing with his advisors how a certain case will affect his re-election,
even if his actions throughout regarding the case have been exemplary and
impartial, is not the sort of thing you'd like a prosecutor to be spending his
time on, surely.

> Your lack of faith in the *Australian* people, however, is
> interesting. I'd have thought --

Ridiculous. It's not about "faith" in any country's people. It's about setting
up an environment and letting normal human behaviour do the rest.

[Superdave]

Hey Joe, how many innocent people do you think we fry each year?

What percentage of verdicts are miscarriages of Justice? You know
when an innocent person is convicted or a guilty man goes free like O.J.?

10% ? more? less?

then again, if you are a US soldier or work for blackwater of Halliburton
in Iraq you can rape, maim and kill whoever you like with impunity.

Is THAT Justice?

Seems to me Justice is NOT.

[Superdave]

I think if a Judge is found out to have sent an innocent man to prison the man
should be released and the Judge sent to prison for twice the time the innocent
man served.

If an innocent man is found to have been executed, then the Judge should be
executed.

This would cause the Judge to be very very sure beyond a reasonable doubt
before sending innocents to prison or worse while they are playing GOD.

Kinda like you would have done with DSK David.

[Gracchus]

On Oct 27, 12:43 pm, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:


> This would cause the Judge to be very very sure beyond a reasonable doubt
> before sending innocents to prison or worse while they are playing GOD.

And your family should host the poor souls freed as a consequence of
the new rules. One night each should be sufficient. Pleasant dreams.

[Superdave]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

and you should host the Judge at your house when the innocent he sent to death
was your very own ONLY son. somehow then, i suspect you would be singing a very
very different tune.

[Gracchus]

On Oct 27, 2:13 pm, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 22:26:56 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com>

> >And your family should host the poor souls freed as a consequence of
> >the new rules. One night each should be sufficient. Pleasant dreams.
>
> and you should host the Judge at your house when the innocent he sent to death
> was your very own ONLY son. somehow then, i suspect you would be singing a very
> very different tune.

Where do the juries stand in this scheme of yours? If they find
someone guilty of murder, is the judge supposed to override it because
there's a shadow of a chance it was a faulty conviction?

[Superdave]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 00:08:45 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Would you rather hang an innocent man than let a guilty one go free?

That IS the question.

I know my answer. What's yours?

[Gracchus]

On Oct 27, 8:20 pm, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:

> Would you rather hang an innocent man than let a guilty one go free?

> That IS the question.

That's the ridiculous, overly-simplistic question you'd like to reduce
the issue to. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a reasonable
standard.

[number_six]

Who will create this "environment" in which "normal human [behavior]"
will "do the rest"?

And who will select the people who select the people charged with this
task?

And who will watch the watchmen?

Representative government generally seeks to mitigate two
countervailing threats -- the tyranny of the few, and the tyranny of
the many. The intent is to hedge against two different facets of
*normal human behavior*.

You and I obviously differ over how direct -- or how attenuated --
should be the connection between the voice of the people and the
selection of certain public officials. So be it.

But more than that, your contributions to this thread exhibit near
apoplexy over one threat, but no awareness of its counterpart. You
repeatedly characterize the vote as an invitation to corruption, but
you are mum on the potential downside of making officials less
accountable.

Finally, the use of fictional story lines as a foundation for your
views on the incidence real-world public sector corruption could not
have been less convincing. Drama, by its nature, ramps up both the
likelihood -- and the intensity -- of conflict. They don't make many
movies about people who go to work every day, discharge their duties
with competence and integrity, and are never pulled by circumstance
into a web of intrigue.

[DavidW]

I was referring to the environment of electing certain officials that's already
been set up.

> And who will select the people who select the people charged with this
> task?
>
> And who will watch the watchmen?
>
> Representative government generally seeks to mitigate two
> countervailing threats -- the tyranny of the few, and the tyranny of
> the many. The intent is to hedge against two different facets of
> *normal human behavior*.
>
> You and I obviously differ over how direct -- or how attenuated --
> should be the connection between the voice of the people and the
> selection of certain public officials. So be it.
>
> But more than that, your contributions to this thread exhibit near
> apoplexy over one threat,

A silly exaggeration. Have I yelled or screamed or been shrill about anything?
I've simply given an opinion of electing officials.

> but no awareness of its counterpart. You
> repeatedly characterize the vote as an invitation to corruption, but
> you are mum on the potential downside of making officials less
> accountable.

In the case of government appointees, such as judges and prosecutors in
Australia, obviously the government needs to review their performances. In
practice this often happens by pressure from the media, which publicizes
prominently the official's improper conduct.

To boil it down, if you elect an official you will get a politician. That's
obvious, since to get elected you need to do all the things that politicians do:
fund a campaign, say what you need to say about yourself and your opponents, and
maybe do some deals in exchange for favours in office if necessary, to persuade
voters to vote for you. But where the position being elected is one that's
supposed to be executed impartially and without fear or favour, such as a
prosecutor or judge, you expect your politician to suddenly become anything but
a politician once he's elected. It's unrealistic and it's not going to happen.
It's the worst way to select such an official.

> Finally, the use of fictional story lines as a foundation for your
> views on the incidence real-world public sector corruption could not
> have been less convincing. Drama, by its nature, ramps up both the
> likelihood -- and the intensity -- of conflict. They don't make many
> movies about people who go to work every day, discharge their duties
> with competence and integrity, and are never pulled by circumstance
> into a web of intrigue.

So are you saying that politics and corruption rarely interferes in the duties
of a DA or elected judge in the U.S.? Do you watch "The Good Wife"? Are you
saying that none of that stuff behind the scenes with nasty tactics from all
sides in the election of the DA in the 2nd season has any basis in fact?

[Joe Ramirez]

On Oct 27, 6:07 pm, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:

> So are you saying that politics and corruption rarely interferes in the duties
> of a DA or elected judge in the U.S.? Do you watch "The Good Wife"? Are you
> saying that none of that stuff behind the scenes with nasty tactics from all
> sides in the election of the DA in the 2nd season has any basis in fact?

I have never watched "The Good Wife," so please discount my remarks
accordingly. I live in a state in which judges and prosecutors are
elected (although some of the judicial elections are unopposed,
"retention" referenda rather than standard two-candidate races) and in
a country in which judges and prosecutors are appointed. I thus have
some familiarity with both systems.

Elections of prosecutors, whether of local district attorneys or the
statewide attorney general, are essentially the same as all other
elections -- for better and for worse. Elections of judges are
typically somewhat more restrained and less negative, on average,
although fundraising still plays a central role. The appointment
process for federal prosecutors (i.e., U.S. attorneys) and judges is
heavily influenced by political hackery at the early stages, and by
blustery, partisan score-settling at the final stages. Both systems
are highly wart-ridden when viewed up close. I decided early on that I
would never attempt to participate personally in either.

My opinion is that the caliber of federal appointees, on average, is
higher than that of the state electees. I also believe that there tend
to be more outright duds among the elected group, and certainly
greater political pressures on them that continue even after their
offices are attained (because then they have to be reattained). I
therefore prefer the appointive system, although appointed judges do
not necessarily have to be life-tenured judges, as provided by the
federal constitution.

I once had a colleague who was appointed to a state appellate court to
fill a short-term vacancy. He was very well-qualified, and when he ran
for "re-election" after just a couple of years, I happily voted for
him even though we were members of opposing political parties. But he
lost because of an ill-informed electorate (sadly, voters in judicial
elections are almost always ill-informed), and that soured him on the
elective process, at least personally. I also had a friend who was
appointed to the federal appellate bench, but was "Borked" and never
even reached a confirmation vote in the Senate. I don't know what his
thoughts are on the matter. But someone else I know was successfully
appointed to the Supreme Court, so not everyone walks away
disappointed. Luck and timing, however, play a distressingly large
role.

[bob]

who would be better at deciding criminal verdicts?
- jury of 12 "peers" (unanimous to convict)
- jury of 3 judges (2/3 to convict)

bob

[Joe Ramirez]

Doesn't really matter, because mandating the second approach in felony
cases would be unconstitutional on two separate grounds:
1. Violation of Sixth Amendment right to jury trial.
2. Violation of Fifth Amendment right to due process, in that
conviction by a 2/3 vote does not comply with the "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard.

[number_six]

On Oct 27, 8:37 pm, Joe Ramirez wrote:
> snip <

> My opinion is that the caliber of federal appointees, on average, is
> higher than that of the state electees. I also believe that there tend
> to be more outright duds among the elected group, and certainly
> greater political pressures on them that continue even after their
> offices are attained (because then they have to be reattained). I
> therefore prefer the appointive system, although appointed judges do
> not necessarily have to be life-tenured judges, as provided by the
> federal constitution.
>

.
Re the overall quality of the federal judiciary, I agree, but of
course there are fewer positions, which (theoretically) should go to
those who have already distinguished themselves. Comparing outcomes
between federal appointees and state and local electees is less than
ideal.

Either system -- an election or an appointment -- can produce a dud.
Alcee Hastings represents a twofer, I suppose.

When Javier says "dammit!" earlier in the thread, I think he's summing
up the frustration of recognizing that the process cannot be made
perfect.

[number_six]

On Oct 27, 3:07 pm, "DavidW" wrote:
> number_six wrote:
> snip <

> > Finally, the use of fictional story lines as a foundation for your
> > views on the incidence real-world public sector corruption could not
> > have been less convincing. Drama, by its nature, ramps up both the
> > likelihood -- and the intensity -- of conflict. They don't make many
> > movies about people who go to work every day, discharge their duties
> > with competence and integrity, and are never pulled by circumstance
> > into a web of intrigue.
>
> So are you saying that politics and corruption rarely interferes in the duties
> of a DA or elected judge in the U.S.? Do you watch "The Good Wife"? Are you
> saying that none of that stuff behind the scenes with nasty tactics from all
> sides in the election of the DA in the 2nd season has any basis in fact?

No, I have not seen it. But whatever is in a script -- and whatever
its basis -- it is too much of an inferential leap to allow that
entertainment to shape your opinion of what *generally* happens in
real situations. It's a show.

[Javier González]

Exactly. No system's going to be perfect.

Which is, btw, the basis of my opposition to the death penalty. You
don't even have to delve into the morality of dispensing legal death
to your fellow people, the fact that you can't issue a rollback on it
is enough to avoid it.

[drew]

On Oct 28, 10:59 am, Javier González <jagon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Which is, btw, the basis of my opposition to the death penalty. You
> don't even have to delve into the morality of dispensing legal death
> to your fellow people, the fact that you can't issue a rollback on it
> is enough to avoid it.

I know that some people deserve to take a bullet to the head. That's
why I am
an abolitionist.

[Javier González]

I agree with that, but until we have a completely foolproof way of
deciding guilt, no unrecoverable punishment should be applied.

[Superdave]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:37:43 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez

Lawyers are one notch above bankers in my book of respect. That's puts them next
to last. Both prey on the misery of others.

[Superdave]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Javier González <jago...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Amen bro.

[Superdave]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 06:50:07 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Not if it is YOUR child that is being fried and you KNOW they are innocent.

I hope it happens to YOU and watch you change your tune pronto!

[Gracchus]

On Oct 29, 7:48 pm, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:

> Not if it is YOUR child that is being fried and you KNOW they are innocent.

> I hope it happens to YOU and watch you change your tune pronto!

Remember when Mike Dukakis was asked whether he'd favor the death
penalty if his *own* wife was raped and murdered? Your remarks are the
inverse, and the tactic is foolish from either angle.

[bob]

1 for 1, no.

how bout 1 for 100?
how bout 1 for 1,000,000?

that really is the question.

bob

[Superdave]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 05:34:53 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

No, it is not foolish. YOU are the FOOL.

Some, like YOU, remain immune to human suffering and injustice UNTIL it happens
to THEM !

Some of us realize that and insist on JUSTICE FOR ALL (and NOT just the RICH).

You obviously , do not.

[Superdave]

No it is not because "if" you hang even ONE innocent man than YOU
are guilty of MURDER and by your own LAW YOU deserve to be HUNG !

No excuses, no maybe's. YOU are guilty of MURDER and YOU shall DIE.

[Gracchus]

On Oct 29, 9:00 pm, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:


> Some, like YOU,  remain immune to human suffering and injustice UNTIL it happens
> to THEM !
>
> Some of us realize that and insist on JUSTICE FOR ALL (and NOT just the RICH).
>
> You obviously , do not.

This is coming from a guy who celebrated a woman's murder on this very
newsgroup.

[Superdave]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:09:06 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus <cernu...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Who me? I did ? When?

[bob]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 21:03:24 +0800, Superdave

so we should 1,000,000 go free if there is 1 innocent amongst them
perhaps?

bob

[Patrick Kehoe]

THAT'S outrageous Drew...

:))))

P

[Gracchus]

On Oct 29, 10:15 pm, Superdave <DaveHazelw...@remail-it.net> wrote:

> >This is coming from a guy who celebrated a woman's murder on this very
> >newsgroup.

> Who me? I did ? When?

Revisit your 2010 thread: "Playboy Slut Paula Sladewski Dead"

[Superdave]

yes. we are not GOD. if you kill 1 innocent. you are a murderer and no different
than those you condemn.

[bob]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 07:43:04 +0800, Superdave

interesting thread dave. 2 aspects. let me get this straight:

(a) if there is 1 innocent person somewhere in the U.S. prison system,
but we don't know who he/she is, then all should be let free. is that
your contention?
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/aaprisonpop.htm

(b) all people involved in the legal system associated with the
conviction of an innocent man/woman should suffer same sentence.

implement (a) or (b) or both????

bob

[TT]

28.10.2011 17:53, number_six kirjoitti:
> On Oct 27, 8:37 pm, Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> snip<
>> My opinion is that the caliber of federal appointees, on average, is
>> higher than that of the state electees. I also believe that there tend
>> to be more outright duds among the elected group, and certainly
>> greater political pressures on them that continue even after their
>> offices are attained (because then they have to be reattained). I
>> therefore prefer the appointive system, although appointed judges do
>> not necessarily have to be life-tenured judges, as provided by the
>> federal constitution.
>>
> .
> Re the overall quality of the federal judiciary, I agree, but of
> course there are fewer positions, which (theoretically) should go to
> those who have already distinguished themselves. Comparing outcomes
> between federal appointees and state and local electees is less than
> ideal.
>
> Either system -- an election or an appointment -- can produce a dud.
> Alcee Hastings represents a twofer, I suppose.

Obviously election doesn't work well for US because American people are
generally stupid. :)

Also supreme court judges are chosen because of their political, and
RELIGIOUS views...such as their opinion on abortion...duh.

[DavidW]

I think juries are open to being dominated by strong or charismatic
personalities, but they are also probably likely to represent community views
where they differ from the law. For example, a home owner recently stabbed an
intruder in his home after a struggle. The intruder later died.
http://www.news.com.au/national/thiefs-fatal-error-homeowner-donald-brooke-who-
stabbed-intruder-faces-harrowing-wait/story-e6frfkvr-1226143138399

I don't know what happened but if the homeowner in a case like this was charged
and it went to a trial I would expect it to be thrown out by the jury in short
order, and so it should be.

[bob]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:17:10 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided>
wrote:

so my question was "who would be better"? still unanswered......

bob

[Superdave]

On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:17:10 +1100, "DavidW" <n...@email.provided> wrote:

Why?

Maybe the homeowner used EXCESSIVE force? Maybe the intruder was out of work and
lost his home too corrupt wall street bankers who got multi-million dollar
bonuses for FAILING and the intruder was only looking for FOOD to feed his
family? Did he deserve to DIE for that?

Maybe the homeowner himself is a homicidal maniac who "baited" the intruder so
he could kill him and have it be called justifyable homicide.

You can never pre-judge like you did with DSK without getting your ass burned
David.

The fact is that JUSTICE is a commodity in the modern world. To be bought and
sold at a price. I know a lot of lawyers will go bananas hearing that but the
statistics DO NOT LIE!

[Joe Ramirez]

> >http://www.news.com.au/national/thiefs-fatal-error-homeowner-donald-b...

> >stabbed-intruder-faces-harrowing-wait/story-e6frfkvr-1226143138399
>
> >I don't know what happened but if the homeowner in a case like this was charged
> >and it went to a trial I would expect it to be thrown out by the jury in short
> >order, and so it should be.
>
> so my question was "who would be better"? still unanswered......

Because it's a dumb question, sorry to say. You've left "better"
completely undefined, and as I've pointed out, our civil society has
virtually no experience with the use of three-judge panels to try
criminal cases. You're comparing many centuries of jury experience
with a product of the imagination.

[Rodjk #613]

I have my doubts about juries.
Last year I was called for jury duty here in Houston.
My name was called out along with 11 others to sit on a drug trial.
While waiting for the trial to begin, we were seated in a small room
and had a few minutes to talk.
The others on the jury were asking if there really needed to be a
trial.
Literally, they asked the bailiff if they could just vote 'guilty' and
go home. Since the police arrested the guy obviously he was guilty and
they should not have to wait for a trial.

It was frightening. And it was not one or two persons either, it was
most of the 12.
The trial ended up being delayed for some reason and we were released.

Rodjk #613

[TT]

Looks like trust in police is high, despite them tasering grannies etc.
Or maybe you were the only upright citizen there, just like in rst. :)

[Rodjk #613]

I think that, in general, people just don't want to be bothered with
being on a jury and that they assume anyone arrested is guilt.
Mistrust of the police only comes into play if they are the ones
arrested/ticketed...

Rodjk #613

[Joe Ramirez]

On Oct 31, 9:18 am, "Rodjk #613" <rjka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have my doubts about juries.
> Last year I was called for jury duty here in Houston.
> My name was called out along with 11 others to sit on a drug trial.
> While waiting for the trial to begin, we were seated in a small room
> and had a few minutes to talk.
> The others on the jury were asking if there really needed to be a
> trial.
> Literally, they asked the bailiff if they could just vote 'guilty' and
> go home. Since the police arrested the guy obviously he was guilty and
> they should not have to wait for a trial.

This is a well-known phenomenon in the criminal justice system -- the
presumption of innocence becomes, in effect, a presumption of guilt.
Everyone is aware of it, but it's tough to combat. It's one of the
reasons that defendants are dressed up to look as respectable as
possible. Good jury instructions also target this predisposition.
Jurors sometimes naively believe that the question before them is
whether the defendant is guilty (and on this point the fact of being
arrested and charged actually is relevant), but it's not. It's whether
he can be *proved* guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If jurors were a bit more sophisticated, they might think, "If this
guy were guilty he would have pleaded out already; since he's taking
his chances with a trial, maybe he really is innocent." That's
probably a more accurate description of how the system works, on
average (though probably not with respect to affluent defendants, but
they're a small part of the pool).

[Superdave]

In the end it does not matter whether a corporate bought and paid for panel of
Judges or an ignorant jury sends an innocent man to die for he is just as dead
and they are just as guilty of MURDER.

[TT]

Can you estimate some percentage how much pleading guilty helps your
sentence?

Now why didn't Murray admit his guilt...or would it really been wise for
him, nobody would be interested in his books etc crap afterwards...

[Superdave]

The whole system is fucked up. Who is going to do anything to change it as long
as all the judges and lawyers feeding off it are on fat city?

Will they ALL give up their wealth for a system that was fair?

ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

fuck me they would. let the blind man DIE ! I am having a barbecue by my
poolside today !

[Joe Ramirez]

Can I? No. Is there information available for someone who wants to
research it? Sure -- this is a popular subject for legal journals and
even the popular media:

"By one count, fewer than one in 40 felony cases now make it to trial,
according to data from nine states that have published such records
since the 1970s, when the ratio was about one in 12. The decline has
been even steeper in federal district courts.
. . .
"In the courtroom and during plea negotiations, the impact of these
stricter laws is exerted through what academics call the 'trial
penalty.' The phrase refers to the fact that the sentences for people
who go to trial have grown harsher relative to sentences for those who
agree to a plea.

"In some jurisdictions, this gap has widened so much it has become
coercive and is used to punish defendants for exercising their right
to trial, some legal experts say.
. . .
"While legal experts say the effect is clear in persuading more
defendants to forgo trials, the trial penalty is hard to quantify
without examining individual cases and negotiations between
prosecutors and defense lawyers."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all

[Joe Ramirez]

Why haven't you given up your alleged wealth in pursuit of a system
that is fair?

[bob]

be honest, you finished the trial and executed the poor slob down
there in Texas, didn't ya?

bob

[bob]

defined: more "just."

> and as I've pointed out, our civil society has
>virtually no experience with the use of three-judge panels to try
>criminal cases. You're comparing many centuries of jury experience
>with a product of the imagination.

other societies do have experience with this i believe. that's why i
asked the question of you opinion.

bob

[Joe Ramirez]

That doesn't help very much. For example, would it be "just" to tell
people that the right to a jury trial that they've had for many
hundreds of years no longer exists? For the sake of a perceived but
unspecified improvement in decision making? Is that a fair trade? And
is it just for a person to be charged AND CONVICTED by the state and
the state alone, with no direct community participation in the
process? Procedural justice is an important part of the question.

Also, does "just" include only the outcome in a particular case, or
the way all the outcomes are perceived by society? For example, single-
judge bench trials are available in U.S. criminal cases at the
election of the defendant, but obviously there are no dissents when
judgments of guilt are delivered. (Remember that we're talking about
trials, not appeals.) What would happen if lots of defendants were (1)
forced to be tried before three-judge panels and (2) convicted by 2-1
votes? (I'm ignoring for the sake of argument the fact that a 2/3
system would be unconstitutional, as I've already mentioned.) It's one
thing to write off a result from a jury that you may personally
believe is nuts, but how would the justice system be affected if
defendants started getting imprisoned in large numbers despite the
fact that a trained, professional jurist in each case heard all the
evidence and concluded that they were not guilty, but he was narrowly
outvoted? The requirement of unanimity (or near-unanimity) in jury
trials has effects that go beyond the outcomes of individual cases.
Our society is used to coping with jury-trial outcomes.

> > and as I've pointed out, our civil society has
> >virtually no experience with the use of three-judge panels to try
> >criminal cases. You're comparing many centuries of jury experience
> >with a product of the imagination.
>
> other societies do have experience with this i believe. that's why i
> asked the question of you opinion.

The systems are too complex to permit the easy transplantation of
parts, even hypothetically. The possibility of convening of a jury
trial shapes much that occurs in American criminal procedure,
including the ways the police gather evidence. Also, the adversary
system as employed in Common Law countries is premised on the role of
the trier of fact (the jury) being rather limited and passive during
the trial itself. Judges in Civil Law countries generally are much
more inquisitorial, i.e., they shape the way the cases are presented
and elicit evidence on their own. (Judges in U.S. bench trials tend to
be more active than juries, but not to the extent that they are in
inquisitorial systems.) Substituting a three-judge panel for a jury as
trier of fact would entail a significant remodeling of the conduct of
trials. Who knows whether that would be for better or for worse?

By the way, I'm sorry I said your question was "dumb." That was too
harsh. I should have said unanswerable.

[bob]

by "just" i'm saying which system would get the outcome correct (not
legally correct necessarily, but *actually correct*) a higher % of the
time. i.e., with 3 judges you get away from having people who know
nothing of the law and people who can be swayed by slick talking
lawyers out of the decision process.

and as for the 3 judge system not being constitutional, i'm only
talking about what'ss better.

>> > and as I've pointed out, our civil society has
>> >virtually no experience with the use of three-judge panels to try
>> >criminal cases. You're comparing many centuries of jury experience
>> >with a product of the imagination.
>>
>> other societies do have experience with this i believe. that's why i
>> asked the question of you opinion.
>
>The systems are too complex to permit the easy transplantation of
>parts, even hypothetically. The possibility of convening of a jury
>trial shapes much that occurs in American criminal procedure,
>including the ways the police gather evidence. Also, the adversary
>system as employed in Common Law countries is premised on the role of
>the trier of fact (the jury) being rather limited and passive during
>the trial itself. Judges in Civil Law countries generally are much
>more inquisitorial, i.e., they shape the way the cases are presented
>and elicit evidence on their own. (Judges in U.S. bench trials tend to
>be more active than juries, but not to the extent that they are in
>inquisitorial systems.) Substituting a three-judge panel for a jury as
>trier of fact would entail a significant remodeling of the conduct of
>trials. Who knows whether that would be for better or for worse?

i was thinking more of this: a presiding judge and 3 other judges
acting like the jury. eh? :-)

>By the way, I'm sorry I said your question was "dumb." That was too
>harsh. I should have said unanswerable.

haha. if it's dumb, i don't mind someone calling it out, no need to
pully a "court1"!!.

bob

[Superdave]

Judges are swayed by the politics of the day. And, the politics of the day is
that CORPORATIONS own them.

Juries are inherently emotional and DUMB yet they seem to be more FAIR than
Judges who only care about the LAW or who OWNES them and NOT what is right
and just.

JUDGES DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT AND JUST !!!!

They could give a shit really.

THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE LAW WHICH IS OFTEN AN ASS.

Given that neither Judges nor Juries are ideal, I'll take Juries anyday.

Still, there has to be a better way.