[godwinson__4-8]

"U.S. law though is highly non-autistic" hilarious but also another point to emphasize is how truly depressing American courts often are. Take the right to a jury. It sounds noble in theory. But when they say judged by your peers they don't mean your actual peers.

It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. Prosecutors have high success rates. Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%. Studies of jury psychology show how much peer pressure and other factors extrinsic to the law come into play.

Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz. Law is the mask of power. By all means defend and assert your rights, but understand the costs. I find people are under such illusions about how cruel the American justice system is that this leads them to make foolish decisions. Do not underestimate the adversarial nature of the justice system, nor the accompanying incentives agents of the state who are on the other side of you have to lie.

[Aurornis]

> Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%.

This is a misunderstood statistic.

Federal prosecutors won't even pursue cases unless they think there's a high chance of success. They don't operate like two private parties suing each other to force the court to decide something. If the evidence is there or the charges aren't fully formed, they don't waste resources on it.

This leads to a contradictory set of complaints that the legal system lets too many people go or doesn't have enough teeth.

[coldtea]

>Federal prosecutors won't even pursue cases unless they think there's a high chance of success.

Given the incarceration rates compared to average western standards, that's a moot point. Even if they selectively pursue, they do pursue a hell of a lot, and they do get a hell of a lot of convictions - relatively. Factor in the severity of the convictions, also much worse compared to average western standards even for the same offenses, and it's an ever worse picture.

[oliwarner]

> Given the incarceration rates...

I don't think you make anything moot by compounding more regional stats. Some countries have more crime, they underinvest in rehabilitation, addiction treatment, and social diversion programmes. Shock horror: jobless, homeless addicts commit crimes. The US also has a land border with long land borders.

That is all to say, comparing apples and margaritas doesn't do what you think it does.

[watwut]

US does not have that much more crime.

[oliwarner]

It's tempting to redefine as "crimes that result in prison sentencing", but the more you pick at these scabs, the more international discrepancies you uncover in law, policing, sentencing and statistics.

In a way that matters here, I don't believe you are correct, but I cede I haven't the time or machinery to hand to prove it.

[someguynamedq]

Might as well not leave a comment then

[ta20240528]

"also much worse …"

Why is convicting and sentencing criminals a bad thing?

[iamnothere]

True, although many prosecutors do also try to put their thumb on the scale when possible.

For comparison, Japan has a 99.9% conviction rate, but defers prosecution in 60% of cases. And police aren’t arresting or even attempting to enforce the law for every crime. Citizens complain that petty crime laws aren’t being enforced enough, leading to a rise in things like graffiti, litter, and traffic violations (the “bosozoku” motorcycle gangs are having a resurgence). But if you do face prosecution, there is enormous pressure to sign a confession and avoid trial, as a conviction at trial may be punished more harshly. Very similar in some respects.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Federal prosecutors won't even pursue cases unless they think there's a high chance of success.

The problem with this theory is that it ignores the incentives on the other side in a criminal case. When you get charged with something, the prosecutor offers you a deal and that deal is almost invariably a significantly lower penalty than what happens if you go to court and get convicted. The plea deal is a lesser charge, if you demand a trial then they throw the book at you, stack charges and ask for more severe penalties for each one.

With the result that if someone actually did it, demanding a trial instead of pleading guilty for a lesser sentence has a large negative expected value. Which in turn implies that it doesn't make sense to do unless you think there is a high probability you can win, for example because you know you didn't do it. The coercive force is so large that it can cause innocent people to plead guilty, since even a 10% chance of losing can screw up your whole life when it means a 10x higher penalty.

And yet > 90% of the people who thought their chances of being acquitted were high enough to be worth taking a much large sentence on conviction, still get convicted. Which seems suspicious.

[arcbyte]

What youre saying is true, but the reality is that the number of people actually affected by it is vanishingly small. Of course its not vanishing if youre that person affected, but as far as the system goes, its negligible.

The reality is that most people who become subject to criminal prosecution are guilty. The reason can often be attributed to overbroad laws, but that still means you are guilty and will likely lose your criminal case. The prevalence of plea deals is just a performance optimization on top of that fact - most people are guilty at that stage and we'll let you off a little easier if you avoid the time and cost of a trial.

Innocent people are coerced to plead guilty, but you also have to realize the number of "innocent people pleading guilty" also contains guilty people who convinced lay people, who never saw or reviewed the evidence, they were innocent. As a prosecutor during a plea negotiation I once almost dismissed a charge against a girl who convinced me that she was innocent until I actually looked a security tape before signing the dismissal. She was 100% guilty. This is another interesting point about how busy prosecutors are - i didnt even bother to review the evidence against her before offering her a plea deal.

All this to say, if you end up coerced into accepting a plea deal despite your innocence, you are not a normal person. Yes, there's at least one normal person out there who was coerced, but they're the exception that proves the rule.

Courts need more funding, laws need to be relaxed and fine tuned, we need to stop the school to prison pipeline, but even with all those problems the system works pretty damn well.

[AnthonyMouse]

> The reality is that most people who become subject to criminal prosecution are guilty. The reason can often be attributed to overbroad laws, but that still means you are guilty and will likely lose your criminal case.

Let's unpack this.

The first assertion is that most people who get prosecuted are guilty. This is assuming the conclusion -- the whole question is whether the system is getting it wrong. The presence of convictions can't be used to prove the absence of false convictions. The presence of more convictions increases the probability of more false convictions. And if we had a reliable way to know the real truth then none of this would be a problem to begin with.

The second is the implication that they're all guilty because there are so many overbroad laws that actually everybody is guilty. But that's just a description of a mechanism by which the system convicts "innocent people", i.e. ordinary people who never had any intention of committing a crime. Making so many things illegal that following every law is beyond human ability and anyone can be convicted at the government's discretion is the thing people are objecting to.

[arcbyte]

I'm agreeing with the comment you originally responded to about the statistic being misleading because it is an almost self-evident truth that prosecutors ultimately expend their limited resources on the cases they are most sure of the defendant's culpability based on the evidence.

You countered about plea deals being coercive because the plea deal is generally much lower than the maximum or even average sentence of people who go on to be found guilty and ultimately sentenced after a trial on the merits.

I then countered that people who ultimately "become subject" are generally guilty and therefore the coerciveness, if you accept it as such, doesn't really matter.

I'll concede two things: 1. "become subject" is doing a lot of work there. What I meant is people who the state ultimately chooses to prosecute. There are plenty of people who are arrested and ultimately not charged for various reasons. So my assertion is really that if the state ultimately chooses to proceed with prosecuting someone, they have some evidence that a crime has happened and that you are connected to it in some way that implies some degree of culpability. 2. My definition of "the system" is just the adversarial trial of evidence in front of an adjudicator. I would not include the laws or legislative system in that, although it is obviously related and we both hate that.

So my whole point is really to say that because of overbroad laws, it really is more likely than not that a prosecutor can find a law for which there is evidence that you are guilty of breaking it. Hence, plea deals existing or not, you would have been found guilty in court, and therefore my assertion from personal experience is that most people who the state ultimately chooses to prosecute are guilty and plea deals are not the terrible coercive force on innocent people you claim it is.

[AnthonyMouse]

> You countered about plea deals being coercive because the plea deal is generally much lower than the maximum or even average sentence of people who go on to be found guilty and ultimately sentenced after a trial on the merits.

The point of which is to say that even if the majority of people charged were guilty, that should not be expected to extend to the people who demand a trial, because the system severely penalizes anyone who does that and is then convicted. Which implies that only the people who believe they have a high probability of being acquitted, e.g. the subset of the accused who know they didn't do it, have the incentive to demand a trial. And yet > 90% of those people are convicted, which seems suspicious.

> I then countered that people who ultimately "become subject" are generally guilty and therefore the coerciveness, if you accept it as such, doesn't really matter.

It matters both to the falsely accused (who can be a minority of the accused while still being a large number of people), who face that coercive pressure since the probability of being falsely convicted after demanding a trial is non-zero, and because it acts as a filtering mechanism on who demands a trial and consequently makes the trial statistics peculiar, which was the original point.

> So my assertion is really that if the state ultimately chooses to proceed with prosecuting someone, they have some evidence that a crime has happened and that you are connected to it in some way that implies some degree of culpability.

This seems like a fair assertion in most cases, but it also leaves room for a lot of trouble.

Suppose an iPad is stolen and someone is spotted on camera just outside the scene of the crime carrying an iPad. It happens that they didn't do it, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time carrying a different iPad than the one that was stolen. But the actual perpetrator wasn't caught on camera so the footage turns them into the prime suspect and their apartment gets searched.

The police don't find the stolen iPad but they do find a high precision scale, which he says is used for cooking, and a bottle of pills prescribed to his ex, which he says he didn't know was there. These explanations seem plausible enough that you might not want to charge them on their own, but the drug possession is technically illegal if he actually knew they were there.

Meanwhile he keeps insisting he didn't steal anything, but there he is on the camera and there are no other suspects. So he gets offered a deal, and then charged for the drugs and "drug paraphernalia" as the penalty for refusing it. Which he then gets convicted of because the requirement to prove that somebody knew they were in possession of something that someone else left behind is the sort of thing the system tends to forget about or work around since actually proving it such an inconvenience.

So now he's getting a conviction whether he pleads guilty to the false charge or not. If he really didn't know about the bottle of pills then none of the charges are true, and if he did it still rings of an injustice when the only reason he was charged with that is the refusal to plead guilty to the thing he was innocent of.

> Hence, plea deals existing or not, you would have been found guilty in court, and therefore my assertion from personal experience is that most people who the state ultimately chooses to prosecute are guilty and plea deals are not the terrible coercive force on innocent people you claim it is.

It seems like there are two alternatives here.

Either your claim is that there are no innocent people because there is always something anyone can legitimately be charged with, in which case the entire system is a sham. Then claiming that innocent people aren't being convicted is like claiming that no one can commit murder because everybody dies anyway. It implies that if the system was acting non-hypocritically then it would self-immolate because all the police and prosecutors would start by filing all the relevant charges against themselves.

Or, we consider the possibility that someone might actually be falsely accused, e.g. it's not a matter of whether selling drugs is illegal or should be, it's a case where they didn't actually sell any drugs. But then, because they've been accused of selling drugs, they have to plead guilty to something they didn't do or else they'll be charged with some other things that they did do, which they wouldn't have been if not for the false charge, and which many other people have done without being charged. So they'll be convicted and harshly sentenced on that for not pleading guilty to the thing they didn't do.

And maybe these aren't even alternatives since they can both be true at the same time.

[pessimizer]

> The reality is that most people who become subject to criminal prosecution are guilty.

This is not the reality, but your own justifying premise. which is why you instinctively began it with the proclamation "this is the reality."

I personally pled guilty for something that I didn't do, and that no one involved thought I did. I was offered a plea bargain of zero time, zero fine, and it would be expunged from my record in a year if I weren't convicted of anything else - which is evidence that the prosecution knew that I hadn't done anything. This was actually a systemic kindness - the people involved in the system couldn't live with the idea that they were punishing me for nothing.

The alternative was going on trial for a stupid felony called "possession of the instrument of a crime" which not only had nothing to do with the conditions of my initial arrest, but carried something like a 5-15 year sentence. The odds that they would have gotten a conviction on such a bizarre felony (the only reason it existed was to have a lower standard) in the state I lived, and with the race I was, and with a public defender, was around 100% imo. They go hard as a punishment for forcing them to hold a trial - that would be the excuse for those same kind people as before to label me a troublemaker who had turned down their kindness, and now deserved to go to prison for nothing.

You've made a comment with a lot of words, but the only reasoning you have is "the reality is," and you surrounded it with pronouncements and some personal anecdote about one woman. You're talking about a system that convicts 90% of the people (unlike me) who said "I didn't do anything, they know I didn't do anything, they certainly will let me go once they figure it out."

> if you end up coerced into accepting a plea deal despite your innocence, you are not a normal person.

The system is unjust because people like you support it exactly as it is...

> need to stop the school to prison pipeline,

...with lefty sloganistic jargon, playing the part of a good progressive prosecutor. You won't see it until it happens to you or someone you care about, then it will become the most important issue in the world. The fact that the US criminal justice system is hard on black Americans is not "racism" or "white supremacy" but because black Americans are not the friends or loved ones of people in power, and will never be. When you personally are prosecuted for nothing, or even for a crime that your peers deem trivial, the resumes of the people at your protest and your candlelight vigil will force people to pay attention, or risk their own comfort. Most people are not so lucky.

The system is an atrocity. It fails the victims of crimes, the accused of crimes, the perpetrators of crimes, and to protect the safety of the public in the aftermath of crime. It is simply an enrichment device for its participants, and an empty performance to mollify the middle class. It also serves to warehouse the wealthless underclass of the descendants of freed slaves away from view when they are found unfit for menial work.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

They never pursue court trials, because it's too much work. But they'll pursue plea deals, because there's this gigantic pipeline and everyone in it (including public defenders) is on the same team: Team Make Him Plead.

Because of this, no true justice is possible. Trials don't just try the defendants, it forces the prosecutor to prove that there really was a case and that they weren't just trying to bully someone who felt it was hopeless and would rather get out of pre-trial jail early. It forces the cops to actually make a fucking case, rather than rely on horseshit to lock someone away that can't bond out.

And no reform is possible. If you explain any of this to someone who actually understands it, they panic and say "but the prosecutors wouldn't even be able to bring 1/50th of those cases to trial, the system would overload" as if that were a bad thing that they couldn't. In the same way that you're not caught in a traffic jam but rather you are traffic, you're not caught up in these problems... your apathy, your ignorance, your rejection of boat-rocking, in short you are the problem.

[imtringued]

I think you forgot something even more basic. Federal prosecutors handle federal crimes and the vast majority of those require extensive investigations to gather evidence before you can even initiate a court case.

The most classic case of federal offense is tax fraud. You can't record tax fraud on a camera or believe the witnesses, you actually need to look at the balance sheet and contracts of the company and make sure there is actually a crime to prosecute.

[hn_throwaway_99]

I don't think it's so much a "misunderstood" statistic as much as a number that people (like the commenter you are replying to) deliberately trot out to use as evidence for their position because they are depending on most people being statistically illiterate.

To be clear, I totally agree with your points, I just think this is more of a case of "lying with statistics" than being a misunderstanding.

[willy_k]

I think in this case Hanlon’s Razor very much applies.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[bcrosby95]

When it comes to political statements everything is opposite day.

[willy_k]

No. When it comes to statements by politicians, maybe. But when it comes to what people say in a setting like this thread, being so flippant in discounting people’s earnest-ness is a mistake and gets in the way of actually moving understanding forward.

[sebasv_]

Thank you for brightening my day. Keep on acing the vibe check!

[account42]

Only fools invoke Hanlon's Razor for inherently adversarial situations.

[willy_k]

Only fools reconcile situations where people disagree as “inherently adversarial”. If you’re feeling adversarial more power to ya, but other people, myself included, are here to discuss the world for discussions’ sake.

[mrloopex]

It’s like the “PETA kills more animals than it saves” trope. That’s because PETA rescues extremely abused animals that are often not long for this world.

[spacedudem]

As a convicted felon for the last 25 years without a single incident since I was released. I tell everyone I know to never trust a single thing anyone says if there is any chance you are being looked at for criminal charges. It's "I want a lawyer" and nothing else. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP, don't call me, your parents, someone to bail you out. Call a mother fucking lawyer. Because once you get your sleeve caught up in the gears of the system and you dont rip free fast enough, it's over. Once the system turns on you, your entire life will never be same. It will effect more aspects of your life than you can imagine. The system will chew you up. It never forgets. It's incapable of forgiveness.

[gypsy_boots]

This is the most logical comment in the entire thread. The only thing to say is "I want a lawyer". Although in this case, he repeatedly said that and wasn't given one. Which just shows that the state can do whatever they'd like, even if it's "unconstitutional". They have a monopoly on violence.

[mothballed]

I've been thrown in immigration jail as US citizen. They will not provide or allow you access to a lawyer and you won't see a judge to determine if they have PC to hold you. You just sit there until they decide to eject you. Nothing else to be done and no one to contact, plus most of the other prisoners cannot speak English.

CBP via a bunch of crazy court cases, basically operates outside constitutional constraints. This is also why DHS has been used as private army by POTUS (snatching up people in unmarked vans in Portland for instance) because they can be ordered essentially directly by POTUS and not have to worry about the constitution.

[wickedsight]

I worked in LE and I support this message. Not because I think police (in my country) are corrupt or anything, but because it's really easy to dig a hole for yourself from the stress of being questioned by police, even if you're completely innocent. And once police have reasonable grounds for investigation, your privacy and that of your family members is gone.

[account42]

Is that advice based on you having been convicted despite being not guilty because you said the wrong thing? Or do you just think you could have gotten away with a lawyer despite being guilty?

[crossroadsguy]

Hey, this part has always bewildered me. I often see "written" pages which someone arrested had uttered to police officer(s) rather than staying silent and asking for a lawyer. Those were later typed up from memory "by the police". How does that work? I mean what does "remaining silent" even mean in this case? I mean the police can make this shit up. Or the arrested person can later just say, "naah, I didn't utter a fucking syllable" even if they actually sang the songs. And no I don't mean video taped or audio taped conversations but when there's no cam and what not. What if the arrested person anyway says later "naah, they had pointed 3 guns at my temple before ushering me into the video taping room"?

(By the way, in many countries, like in India, if you do/say that to the police you might lose few of your bones and possibly normal functioning of few limbs and organs. Oh the constitution prevents that just fine here as well and quite strongly at that. The thing is constitution isn't an omnipotent and omnipresent just vigilante sentient being that is available to protect everyone everywhere all the time.)

[adgjlsfhk1]

> Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%

Prosecutors pick their cases. Defense doesn't. The cases that aren't 90%+ sure aren't charged.

[fsuts]

Yes.

Prosecutors will often lower charges to ones where it can be tried without a jury too

[SoftTalker]

And this is as it should be.

[8note]

no way!

it should be about 50% conviction rate so that juries dont go in with non-evidence that the case is good because the feds thought it should go to court

[victorbjorklund]

So prosecutors should bring you to court even if they think there isn’t evidence that you are guilty just to make the conviction rate go down? Today they would let you walk but you would want them to take you to court for a crime the prosecutor don’t even think there is enough evidence?

[NateEag]

"When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

That is, yes, a ~50% conviction rate would be decent evidence that the Justice system is neither over-aggressive or under-aggressive in pursuing protection.

If it were an explicit goal, it could not serve that purpose any longer.

[__MatrixMan__]

That would be a nice outcome but whose responsibility would you make it to encourage it? Judges and juries should not grade on a curve. Prosecutors shouldn't waste taxpayer money chasing convictions that are out of reach. There's nobody with access to that calibration dimetion.

[Cider9986]

Fund public defenders more so they are less overworked.

[hn_throwaway_99]

You do realize that what you're advocating for is for prosecutors to bring more cases to trial that previously they would have dropped.

And you think that benefits defendants how???

[account42]

The comment you are replying to already answers that question.

[hn_throwaway_99]

My question was rhetorical. If OP really thinks going to trial is better for defendants because it will bring down prosecutors' conviction rates, I've got a bridge to sell them.

[refurb]

> It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

But that's good no? People who got out never would have taken it seriously.

I sat on a jury trial and was highly impressed with how seriously my fellow jurors took it - especially the presumption of innocence. When they started to go down some incorrect logical path, someone would step up and correct it.

Not to mention the public defender ripped apart the DA's case. It was the exact opposite of what I was expecting.

> Prosecutors have high success rates.

You're forgetting that the prosecutors don't bring cases they think they're going to lose to trial, they either drop the charges or try a plea deal. So you'd entirely expect the success rate to be high.

[Cider9986]

Awesome. Apparently public defenders are better than private attorneys for various reasons depending on the case. They are overworked though.

[Hnrobert42]

Is the high success rate because they are good at winning or good at picking winning cases? Does that 90% include plea bargains?

[RRWagner]

I've been on jury duty several times and in each time the entire jury pool was dismissed an hour or so into the morning, with "all cases have been settled". As I was leaving, the official said, "see how efficient we are now?". I replied, "The guillotine is efficient, but it's not justice." Look into Aaron Swartz. The % of cases that go to trial is very small, in no small part because plea bargaining is no bargain at all. "Plead guilty and we'll do the minimum (whether you're actually guilty or not), or go to trial and we will seek the maximum sentence, which could be 30 years in prison. What's your answer?"

[Exoristos]

You're begging OP's question.

[hn_throwaway_99]

How so?

OP is strongly implying that the 90% success rate for prosecutors is due to the courts being stacked against the defense. IMO that is where the logical fallacy is. Since prosecutors have wide latitude in deciding which cases to charge in the first place, it is very possible that the high success rate is due to prosecutors only charging cases where the accused actually committed the crimes being charged. Indeed, for the ~10% of cases where the accused is not found guilty, about 8% are due to the government dropping the case - only 1% are the jury acquitting the defendant outright. Thus, it would appear from that data that when the prosecution sees they are not likely to win a case, they drop it.

I'm making no argument that the courts or law are "fair", I'm just making the argument that quoting the 90% number is in no way evidence that courts are inherently biased towards the prosecution.

[vkou]

The courts are stacked against the defense, but that statistic in itself is not proof of it.

[fsuts]

The courts are stacked against the defence as the bigger the fight, the more defence lawyers can bill.

The legal profession is incentivised to not seek to change rules that disadvantage their clients…

[Hnrobert42]

I disagree, but I at least appreciate the correct use of that expression.

[duxup]

I think it’s a valid question as far as what the nature of that success rate is.

[__MatrixMan__]

Some of us report for jury duty just itching to nullify something. Don't you? Checks and balances...

[Barbing]

Nullify if necessary, more likely duty to justice as best as I can come to understand it.

We should all know it though!:

  It has been commonly used to oppose what jurors perceive as unjust laws, such as those that once penalized runaway slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act, prohibited alcohol during Prohibition, or criminalized draft evasion during the Vietnam War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[helterskelter]

I got selected as juror once just hoping to laugh at anything the cops said on the witness stand and let some poor soul go free but it turns out the defendant was just a violent scumbag who stabbed random people in public, and there was a video of it. After we decided he was guilty, they listed other things he had been convicted of and asked if he was a repeat offender... Let's see, shot somebody in the back, robbed liquor stores at gun point (dressed as a clown IIRC) and some other weird shit. That decision didn't take very long.

Honestly we didn't even throw the book at him, prosecutors were charging him with a bunch of offenses and we decided guilty on only two, but the repeat offender bit probably locked him up for a few decades.

The funny thing was that all the jurors thought the victim was a complete douchebag and thought both parties deserved time. As it turns, somebody I knew at the time knew the victim from childhood and he apparently molested his 8 year old cousin.

[nostrademons]

I just served on a jury and in our case, the cop was a lying scumbag, the prosecutor's expert witnesses were people milking the taxpayers to provide the evaluations that the state wanted to hear for thousands of dollars per hour, the defense's expert witnesses copy-and-pasted an evaluation from another client but didn't bother to proofread before the prosecutor brought up that they had the wrong name in the text, and the defendant raped and molested multiple kids below the age of 8, some still in diapers.

I feel like many court cases are textbook instances of Everyone Sucks Here. I needed therapy after the case because it had so shaken my faith in both the justice system and humanity.

[Hikikomori]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Grigson

Forensic sciences and experts hired by prosecutors is a big problem.

[mlrtime]

"I feel like many court cases are textbook instances of Everyone Sucks Here. I needed therapy after the case because it had so shaken my faith in both the justice system and humanity."

I really don't think most of the people posting here understand what the professionals working in criminal justice/law see on the average day. They see the worst of the worst on one side, and then the public who they are trying to get a paycheck to defend on the other attacking them.

This in no way excuses bad behavior, but we're all human and these people aren't robots.

[icantevenhold]

That is horrible but robbing a liquor store dressed as a clown is pretty funny (in my head probably not irl)

[manarth]

Imagine picking the suspect out of the line-up, or drawing up a photo-fit.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Some people suck. Some of the people who suck are poor and physically violent, some are rich and politically and economically violent.

There's a kind of fog of incomprehension over indirect crimes which makes them much easier to get away with.

People still die though.

[expedition32]

I don't understand the jury system. If your server is down you don't grab randos from the street to fix it.

Hell Americans know this too which is why you have a professional judge and lawyers. And you guys don't have a night watch with pitch forks and muskets to police the village anymore.

A jury system is an anachronistic relic.

[inigyou]

If your server is down you might ask for advice in an IRC channel, receiving help from whoever is there.

The random selection of juries was supposed to ensure they aren't any special class of people. For instance judges are usually from upper middle class backgrounds and it used to be that your innocence or guilt was decided entirely by the aristocratic nobility. By using random selection, that sort of thing is avoided.

[jcranmer]

The fundamental idea of a jury, when it comes down to it, is that you're asking 12 random people "was this person's actions reasonable?" given conflicting accounts of what those actions were. The process by which you get there is more convoluted than that (and generally assumes a higher competence by the jury than probably exists), but juries seem to do a very good job of upholding the basic idea of evaluating the reasonableness of actions.

[FatherOfCurses]

In a jury system, the judge provides instructions to the jury about how they are supposed to weigh the evidence presented against the requirements of the law. They don't need to be technical experts. The theoretical idea of "a jury of one's peers" (while not perfect) is making a fresh decision based on the merits of the singular case, rather than a judge deciding based on prejudices they've built up over hundreds of previous cases.

[blitzar]

I went itching to nullify injustices - I left wanting to reintroduce the death penalty for petty crimes.

[throwaforfeds1]

> Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz.

Indeed. There are certainly parallels between him and Sam Tunick. But I'm not sure the public is ready for all the parallels.

[a34729t]

Exactly. People complain police dont prevent crime, but dont realize that is not their purpose. The police exist to protect the government, not the people.

[chii]

The police are there to enforce laws, but enforce it by punishment, rather than prevention. The potential deterrence effect still applies, as people do get discouraged from crimes by the mere presence of the police. However, there is zero legal duty for the police to protect someone who is currently under attack from a criminal.

[stnikolauswagne]

> However, there is zero legal duty for the police to protect someone who is currently under attack from a criminal.

That has to be incorrect, by the time someone is under actual attack from a criminal that criminal will have allready comitted crimes that the police can and have to punish for, i.e. Threat of Force with a Lethal weapon or sth like that.

[kube-system]

Legally, the police do not have to swoop in to stop someone who is actively murdering you. They can just wait until later and write a report after you’re dead.

1981 Warren v. District of Columbia

[happymellon]

Police don't prevent crime, they arrest and charge people for committing crime.

Arresting people because they might/could commit a crime would be a bad route to go down.

> The police exist to protect the government, not the people.

The police exist to protect the rule of the land. The military exists to protect the government.

[orthecreedence]

"You see there are people who believe the function of the police is to fight crime, and that's not true, the function of the police is social control and protection of property."

- Michael Parenti

[DANmode]

Which part of the government protects the people?

[patrick451]

None of it

[Scandiravian]

The part that is afraid of not getting voted in next election. As long as they make the voting ticket a two party/person race and ensure that their voters believe the opposition is the literal devil, then they don't have to be too afraid

Luckily that has never happened /s

[victorbjorklund]

It is not surprising. They just don’t go to court unless they think they have enough evidence for a conviction. In a perfect world the conviction rate would be 100% because in a perfect world the prosecutor would drop the case before if they don’t have enough evidence.

[reticulates]

> Take the right to a jury. It sounds noble in theory. But when they say judged by your peers they don't mean your actual peers. It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

What? A jury system is far from perfect but this is about as intellectually rigorous as “the lottery is a tax on the poor”. Many people are thrilled to do jury duty because they are invested in their community, your nihilism is not a universal truth, jury duty isn’t a burden, it is a civic duty, an honor.

[lovich]

> It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty.

It’s not even just who couldn’t get out of it. It’s filtered for people who answer honestly. I was disqualified for a grand jury because the judge asked me if I would believe the testimony of police officers as truthful and I said it would depend on the police officer.

The system already had their hands forced on accepting that some cops lie with Brady disclosures but the fact that I didn’t just naively accept police testimony meant I was an unscramble juror.

Even if you’re a true believer in the system you won’t be allowed to participate because you didn’t lie.

[fsuts]

If it’s a malicious prosecution by the country/state then Jury is your best best over a Judge.

There is a reason that Elon Musks companies and others put a ‘you agree to not have a jury trial…’ clause in their terms as Judges are easier to influence - when a legal case is filed it’s allocated to a judge and certain cases will go strategically to a Judges with certain bias

[weberer]

>Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz

He killed himself before the trial even began. I think he would have won the case if he actually went through it.

[adrianwaj]

Maybe that's why "they" killed him?

Josh Greenberg from Grooveshark died of unknown cause in 2015 after taking a settlement rather than going to trial. He wiped all the music (did he really need to do that?) and then gave up all the software. The service may well have been seen as a massive cost center during its life and the death was a message or warning. I don't know. Business is war, isn't it? - quite literally.

One person's savior can become another person's scapegoat or witch. Even all three.

Personally, I would be suspicious of any death around a high profile trial - at least as a possibility. Greenberg introduced a 'tipjar' eventually to compensate artists but I think he would've been better off making a swapping service where users can trade their own CD-ripped or purchased files for another person's. Just like swapping physical CDs or LPs. So 1-to-1 personal distribution rather than Grooveshark's 1-to-many public distribution without the required licenses. An escrow service for file-swapping.

Sort of unrelated, though.

To me, litigation may be an incredibly dangerous route to justice. "Winning at all costs" may mean stopping a case going to trial in the first place. Judges can also end up the biggest losers too. Justice always gets served - but whose justice?

[ls612]

There is no law. There is only power, and the will to use it. Remember and internalize this at all times.

[hn_submit]

Yeah, but without a jury O.J. Simpson never would've walked out of court a free man.

For example in Europe when someone dies somebody always has to go to jail, even if they were defending themselves or responding to a potential threat. A jury could show compassion or empathy. Judges are extremely stoic in that regard.

[chasil]

This reference from Germany indicates that self-defense is lawful even if it ends the attacker's life, as long as the violence is not excessive for the situation.

https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-de...

[hn_submit]

They'll always rule that the violence was excessive. They'll say you could've slapped him in the face or disarmed the attacker.

The only ones getting a free pass are criminals. When they shoot and kill each other judges usually rule that it was self-defense. Ordinary people...no such luck.

Besides in Europe you always have to use physical violence to kill someone because firearms are illegal.

[lefra]

> in Europe when someone dies somebody always has to go to jail

Please cite the european law that states this.

[hn_submit]

There's no specific law, but a judge will always jail you for manslaughter.

[lefra]

No one went to jail when my grandparents died. Stop spreading lies.

[UncleSlacky]

The well-known country of Europe with its single set of laws? That Europe?

Self-defence can be a valid justification for manslaughter, at least in the UK.