Do you think "The system works"? US trials.

[Lissa]

@kelly5078

Lissa: No, sorry, I’m not buying it. I’ll grant that voter apathy is a bad thing. On the other hand, I’ve got news for you, the ballot box is only part of the way this country is run. There are a lot of people running around with a lot of power who have never had their name on any ballot.

Many of them were appointed by officials who were voted into office. My husband is one of those people. He was appointed to his position by the director of corrections for our state, who in turn was appointed by the governor.

There are a lot of people who’ve been on the ballot, and got in office because they’re excellent liars.

Again, that’s entirely the fault of the voters. Anyone with access to the internet, newspapers or a library can research the candidates running for office, and most of them are not all that clever. There’s plenty of info on their misdeeds if one cares to look for it. However, most Americans actually prefer to be lied to as opposed to facing some unpleasant truths.

There are a lot of elected and unelected officials taking money (and football tickets and junkets and so on) and voting against the best interests of the country.

This isn’t a big secret. All you have to do is pull up the candidate’s disclosure forms. However, everyone’s equally guilty. Taking gifts is as much a part of the American political tradition as kissing babies and wearing flag pins. As for voting against the true best interests of the country-- of course. If the voters want it, by god, they’ll get it.

Step One in politics: Find a “problem” and make people afraid of it.
Step Two: Announce that you have legislation to solve it. (By the time people figure out what a bad idea it was, you’ll be past your term limit anyway.)
Step Three: Incredible profit.

Damned if I can see how I “deserve” any of that.

Sure you do. I do, too. We all do. We know there’s a problem, but what have we done to change things? Me, I’m too busy and lazy to do much more than bitch about it. I vote for what I think is the lesser of two evils, write to my politicians about issues I care about and try to educate the people around me without driving them batshit. That’s about it. I’m not willing to run for office myself, or dedicate my life to trying to make people see what a fucked-up situation we’re in. Hell, I don’t even volunteer to help candidates with whose views I agree.

Sorry to say, but we’re stuck with what system we’ve got. The same group of political elites will continue to shuffle the power positions between them, always careful to appear different enough to give the voters the illusion of choice. The mood of America will always swing like a pendulum: a period of conservatism followed by a period of liberalism, and the more intense the fervor, the more intense the backlash. Politicians will always be there to encourage the fervor and Moral Panics, sidestepping neatly the results of their efforts to “solve” the “problems”, smiling benignly when the next crop comes along vowing change.

Thus will it ever be. Why? Because we’re too fat and happy to get really worked up about anything. Even the poorest American is rich beyond the wildest dreams of those in Third World nations. Revolutions and massive changes only happen when the people are hungry and scared. We’re neither. We enjoy getting worked up over the Moral Panic of the week, much the way going to a scary movie is enjoyable, but we know that our lives are comfortable and secure. We have the freedom to scuttle about in our daily lives pretty much however we please, and a few violations of civil rights here and there don’t seem to be that big of a deal when they’re not happening to us.

I’m a part of it, too. I buy cheap products knowing full-well that they were made by the exploited hands of third world workers in deplorable condidtions. I waste food, power, water, paper and gasoline with impunity, 'cause it’s my God-given right as an American to be wasteful. I vote knowing my politicians work to keep those resources coming because they realize that as long as we have Dollar Menu french fries and a hot button issue to keep us distracted, all will be well in the land of the free.

Americans don’t WANT change. They want to keep a lifestyle that consumes more of the world’s resources than any other nation, and they want politicians who make promises to make things even better. They don’t want a sour-puss who warns what consequences our hedonism may have in the future, and they sure as fuck don’t want to actually sit down and think about all of the complicated aspects of social problems when it’s easier to find someone to blame and a quick-and-easy solution to it so they can shrug it off and get back to watching Survivor.

Yeah, we’re getting what we deserve, and what’s more, we don’t care.

[Lissa]

@Valgard

Lissa and Kelly, it looks like the discussion is veering off the OP a bit, from debating our trial system into a general discourse on voter apathy and governmental corruption. Just my two cents

Yeah, sorry. I tend to do that.

[Northern_Piper]

@marginal prophet

Trials seem to take forever to get into court. Compare trials in prior decades and in other western countries today.
The promise of a speedy trial is never invoked. Every single defense attorney requires you to cede that before proceding. Not to your advantage, but his.

A defence lawyer needs time to review your case, to review the evidence disclosed by the prosecution, and to review the law, if there are any unusual points. All of that takes time.

As well, most defence lawyers have a number of clients simultaneously. If you go to the lawyer of your choice, and that lawyer says that he’s got 15 trials in the pipeline right now, that will slow down your court date. You could try to find a lawyer who’s not busy, but there’s usually a reason why a lawyer isn’t busy…

If you have the money to hire a defence lawyer to represent you exclusively, that might speed the matter up, but that’s not a factor within the control of the defence lawyer.

Plus, “speedy trial” is relative. What is a reasonable time for a simple assault with only a couple of witnesses to come to trial? How about the Enron frauds? A year long lag for the simple assault may not be a reasonable time, but a year long lag for Enron might be seen as a bit rushed.

[sctrojan]

An apparent intractable problem with our system of trials is that delay is to the advantage of one or both of the parties. It is assumed that delay advantages the defendant more often than the prosecution. Witnesses move, die, etc. Witness’s memories deteriorate. To this party, frequently advantaged by a delay, the system gives the right to demand a speedy trial. It doesn’t work and it won’t work.

[FisherQueen]

Things go wrong- things will inevitably go wrong in any system as large as our American legal system. But in general, I think our system is sound, and the problems that need to be fixed are things that will make the system work the way it’s intended to work by design-- not things that actually change the design of the system.

[Kalhoun]

@oslagle

An apparent intractable problem with our system of trials is that delay is to the advantage of one or both of the parties. It is assumed that delay advantages the defendant more often than the prosecution. Witnesses move, die, etc. Witness’s memories deteriorate. To this party, frequently advantaged by a delay, the system gives the right to demand a speedy trial. It doesn’t work and it won’t work.

I don’t mind delays when you’re talking about imprisonment or life/death situations. I think the facts need to be as close to precise as you can possibly get. But when a person drags out a divorce or another money-related case, it is maddening. They’re in there trying to piss someone off or get something they aren’t entitled to, and the rest of us get caught up in the fallout.

It also pisses me off that MONEY gets you better representation, particularly in life/death/incarceration situations. I don’t know what the answer is, but it is a huge problem.

[New_Iskander]

@kelly5078

Answer to the OP: no, it doesn’t work, at least on the criminal side. My family has had experience with it. It’s slow, deadly slow. It’s overly punitive (judges tend to be ex-prosecutors, which doesn’t help). Prosecutors get to sit in the catbird seat. Poor people get inadequate representation. Grand juries are a rubber stamp. The police lie like rugs. People end up settling on things they never even did, for fear of a worse outcome from a trial. Juries are capricious, judges more so. It’s all about fear and control, not about justice.

And yet some people demand granting the right to a ‘fair trial’ in US courts to all persons detained by US military in the Middle East.

We better fix all those things you listed before we do that. Or we risk to make complete fools of ourselves once again.

[Ghanima]

I don’t think there’s any real justice in our justice system. Of course justice is subjective so that makes it difficult to judge. However, it seems to me that in our effort to be “fair” and “objective” we really lose sight of the true purpose behind law and punishment. I think people who are inherently a detriment to our society are regularly let off the hook due to some technicality or other.
My boyfriend was recently on a jury that let a man go who was a hardcore drug addict who shot a man several times. Why? Because they couldn’t prove that he “intended” to kill the guy. :rolleyes: So now this guy’s kids and neighbors are all vulnerable to this psycho’s next outburst. Where’s the justice for all of those people?

[pravnik]

@Ghanima

My boyfriend was recently on a jury that let a man go who was a hardcore drug addict who shot a man several times. Why? Because they couldn’t prove that he “intended” to kill the guy. :rolleyes: So now this guy’s kids and neighbors are all vulnerable to this psycho’s next outburst. Where’s the justice for all of those people?

Wait…he was on the jury and he’s complaining that “the jury” let the guy go?

[pravnik]

@oslagle

Anyone who has seen a trial or participated in one knows that the use of jurors’ time is incredibly inefficient. They sit in the jury box or the jury room for countless hours while the lawyers and the judge have side-bar conferences. They hear damaging “evidence”, which, after a side-bar conference, is determined to be inadmissible. To avoid a mistrial, which would involve even more time, the jurors are instructed to forget what they have just heard. (There are hundreds of examples.)

A proposed solution–have the presentation to the jury by way of a closely edited recording. All matters that the jury should not experience (including inadmissible evidence and side-bar conferences) would be edited out of the recording.

Improvements involve trade offs. What do you think will be lost and what will be gained if the proposal is implemented.

Well, to begin with I’d argue that any inefficient use of time is hugely outweighed by the inefficiencies of debating points endlessly on appeal and retrying cases over and over and over. It’s not just the jury’s time that’s being balanced, it’s the integrity of the system and judicial and prosecutorial resources.

Other than that, lawyers try to clear these matters up ahead of time by having pretrial determinations of admissabilty and motions in limine as much as possible. Are you proposing that the court have a trial, videotape it, have it professionally edited to the satisfaction of all parties, have the lawyers (or judge, in federal court) select the jury, and then show the edited tape to the jurors with all parties present to endure no juror misconduct during the viewing?

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Yes, I do think the system works - sometimes poorly, sometimes too slowly, I’ll admit, but overall surprisingly well, considering the many demands placed upon it and the volume of both criminal and civil dockets these days.

In my experience, continuances are requested by both prosecutors and defense counsel for reasons they think proper. A court is always free to deny a request for a continuance where it seems to be dilatory or merely tactical. Corruption in American courts is quite limited - the last notable crooked-judge case I can think of was in Chicago in the early 1980s; the independence and integrity of the judiciary in other countries can be significantly worse.

Something like 90% of all jury trials in the world are held in the U.S. - even Britain, home of the common-law system, has very few nowadays. Jury selection is really more of an art than a science, but in my experience the great majority of juries really try to understand the cases they’re hearing and do the right thing (thank you for your service, Valgard). Jury service is, in most courts, much more intelligently administered than it used to be: permitting jurors to take notes, having early-morning call-ins to determine need, fewer automatic excusals of prospective jurors, much more attention paid to racial and gender exclusions, plain-English jury instructions, and one day/one trial policies. And where a miscarriage of justice occurs, there are several layers of appellate review available.

To paraphrase Churchill, it’s the worst system of justice… but for every other one which has been tried up to now.

[Valgard]

@Ghanima

I don’t think there’s any real justice in our justice system. Of course justice is subjective so that makes it difficult to judge. However, it seems to me that in our effort to be “fair” and “objective” we really lose sight of the true purpose behind law and punishment. I think people who are inherently a detriment to our society are regularly let off the hook due to some technicality or other.
My boyfriend was recently on a jury that let a man go who was a hardcore drug addict who shot a man several times. Why? Because they couldn’t prove that he “intended” to kill the guy. :rolleyes: So now this guy’s kids and neighbors are all vulnerable to this psycho’s next outburst. Where’s the justice for all of those people?

Keep in mind that the prosecution decides what charges to bring against the defendant. Suppose that Murder 2 requires showing that the defendant was trying to kill the victim and Negligent Homocide only requires showing that the D was so reckless that his actions were bound to result in somebody dying. If you know that you will have a tough time showing murderous intent then it might be better to charge with the “lesser” crime since the odds of a conviction are much better.

(IANAL and it’s been many years since my criminal law class in high school. This is just an example)

If the prosecution only brought the Murder 2 charge then that’s all that the jury can decide on, and if the prosecution doesn’t make their case then the jury has the RESPONSIBILITY to find not guilty. The jury cannot say “Well the D didn’t meet the elements of what he was charged with but he committed this other crime so we’ll find him guilty of that other crime”.

It sounds to me like the prosecution charged the D with one particular crime (and it might have been a tough sell)…they could have used a slightly “easier” crime (more likely to get a conviction) and they could probably also have thrown in a number of other crimes (for example if the D was already a convicted felon then hit him with “Felon possessing a firearm”) which might have got the D many many years in jail right there. If on the other hand the prosecution put all their eggs in one basket then they might wind up having the D found not guilty and running around free.

[sctrojan]

@pravnik

Well, Are you proposing that the court have a trial, videotape it, have it professionally edited to the satisfaction of all parties, have the lawyers (or judge, in federal court) select the jury, and then show the edited tape to the jurors with all parties present to endure no juror misconduct during the viewing?

Even knowing that the devil is in the details, I did not elaborate the scheme. You certainly have done a good job of beginning to flesh out the detail. Testimony is frequently presented to jurors in the form of video taped depositions. The procedure is close to that which you suggest.

In an earlier post it was suggested that the jurors would have trouble assessing the credibility of video presented testimony and arguments. Perhaps and if so that would be a negative. I have trouble with the idea that jurors are able to assess credibility. I know that is what they are supposed to do, but I see the suggestion that they do so more of an apology for the system than as a a statement of fact. Second, many persons now have had more experience with video than with interpersonal relations.

[Dunderman]

Thanks for your interesting account, Valgard. One quick, slightly off-topic question if I may:

@Valgard

Reason the case took 8 years to get to court was that the defendant had been on the run from the law. He had recently been caught living in Las Vegas under a different name and he changed identies several times. That was not allowed to be mentioned in court.

Why was that not allowed to be mentioned? Here in Sweden that would count as an aggravating circumstance and most definitely be mentioned during the trial. Of course, we don’t use juries, but still.

[groo]

I’ve served on juries four times, and in each case I came away impressed by my fellow citizens. Sure, during initial questioning, many people will say just about anything to get out of a jury, but the ones who stay have seemed to me to take their jobs seriously and attempted to render just verdicts. I really think you have to serve on a jury before deciding whether or not “the system works.”

My last case was a civil trial which lasted 3 weeks. By the end, three jurors (including me) were past the point where our companies would reimburse us, but we still went laboriously through several years of medical bills, estimated the future earnings lost by the plaintiff and reached some difficult conclusions. (We found for the plaintiff, but in contrast to stereotypical California juries, we awarded her virtually nothing beyond the medical bills associated with her accident. She started crying as we were polled, and one person on the jury broke down as well.)

Things I’d change: speed up the (daily) proceedings so the jury doesn’t spend half the day cooling their heels waiting for motions to be decided, and maybe pay more than $5 per day.

[Acsenray]

@Priceguy

Thanks for your interesting account, Valgard. One quick, slightly off-topic question if I may:Why was that not allowed to be mentioned? Here in Sweden that would count as an aggravating circumstance and most definitely be mentioned during the trial. Of course, we don’t use juries, but still.

WAG: If the question of fact to be decided by the jury was whether the defendant committed the crime in the first place, the judge might have believed that it would be unfairly prejudicial to inform them of the flight. The judge might have believed that (he fled --> he did it) is an incorrect inference.

[pravnik]

@Priceguy

Thanks for your interesting account, Valgard. One quick, slightly off-topic question if I may:Why was that not allowed to be mentioned? Here in Sweden that would count as an aggravating circumstance and most definitely be mentioned during the trial. Of course, we don’t use juries, but still.

ascenray pretty much got it. Here in the states we generally have a bifurcated trial system, meaning first we determine whether the person is guilty or innocent, then if he’s found guilty we determine what the appropriate punishment should be. In the guilt/innocence stage, the focus is on whether this particular defendant committed this particular crime. We don’t want the defendant convicted for being a criminal in general or having a bad character in general, so the admissability of other crimes, wrongs or acts he may have done is greatly limited. In the punishment stage, the flight would likely be admissable.

[Valgard]

@pravnik

ascenray pretty much got it. Here in the states we generally have a bifurcated trial system, meaning first we determine whether the person is guilty or innocent, then if he’s found guilty we determine what the appropriate punishment should be. In the guilt/innocence stage, the focus is on whether this particular defendant committed this particular crime. We don’t want the defendant convicted for being a criminal in general or having a bad character in general, so the admissability of other crimes, wrongs or acts he may have done is greatly limited. In the punishment stage, the flight would likely be admissable.

The DEA didn’t tell us specifically why they could not introduce this into evidence but I believe that Pravnik and Ascenray are right. During voi dire and before our deliberations we were instructed that our job is only to determine guilt or innocence, we are not deciding punishment - that’s up to the judge, I imagine that he took the defendant’s subsequent behavior into account. If someone knows how to look these things up I can give you the name of the case and you can see what sentence the defendant received.

Groo, we got paid $40 per day plus travel. Not a fortune but certainly better than $5/day…unless you mean $5/hr?

[SkeptiJess]

@Wesley Clark

I’d be happy to hear it.

I would also like to hear it. I’ve never been on jury duty, but my dad has and, like Valgard, he came away from the experience with positive feelings about the jury system. He felt that, at least at that trail, justice was served promptly and fairly.

[SkeptiJess]

Shoot – never mind me. When I responded, I could only see the first 8 posts. Maybe my scroller was stuck or something… Anyway, I saw the rest of the thread (including Valgard’s response) after I posted.