I also think that most cases in Continental Europe are handled by a panel of judges who serve as their own investigators/fact finders as well. I need to do a more in-depth study though.
I think European governments handle this by making judgeship be a separate academic track in law school.
That being said the Continental system is completely different from the American system. Both have their pros and cons. And I still have faith in juries deciding question of fact.
We both know that the overwhelming majority of cases plea or settle because the stakes are too high for all parties involved. Also the fact is that if every criminal and/or civil case went to trial, the courts would grind to a halt and cost a lot more money than they do know. It is also true that even though the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prison population.
Questions:
1. Do you think it is good and/or necessary that most criminal cases end in a plea deal?
2. Do you think the issue of needing so many cases to plea means that we have a problem with too much crime, too many criminal laws, both, neither?
3. Do you think prosecutorial overzealousness is needed?
4. How often do you think people plead guilty for crimes that they did not commit because it is more rational to go to medium or minimum security for ten years than face f0rty at maximum security? Especially if they are poor and relying on a good-faith but overworked and under-budgeted public defender?
5. Do you think we can have a criminal justice system where number 4 is not an issue? Why or why not?
The American way seems to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
I think a lot of people want zealous prosecution for the stuff that they hate but more mercy for the stuff that does not bother them so much. Unfortunately this depends on who the defendant is often and how similar he or she is to us on tribal lines.
The one argument I can make for election of DAs is local control.
Most Californians like most Americans are pro-Capital Punishment. This is not true in San Francisco. It is also not true in a handful of other deep blue areas like Manhattan, Brooklyn, etc.
Every person who wants to be DA in San Francisco or Manhattan knows that they have to promise never to seek the death penalty. If DA became a political appointment, I can see a Governor not caring about local issues like that.
The prosecutor in the Swartz case is known for going after white-collar crime.
Like many other people, I am deeply upset about the HSBC decision. The tricky part is how to punish the bank without punishing innocent people caught in the cross-hair. Those people include:
1. The hundreds of thousands or millions of people with ordinary bank accounts and loans at HSBC.
2. The overwhelming majority of employees who did not know and were not involved in the money laundering schemes directly or with knowledge. This includes janitors, secretaries, bank tellers, to probably very high up people. Wouldn't a proper punishment for HSBC be to dismantle the bank completely? At least their US operations? How do you this without wrecking havoc on the economy and many individuals?
I am trying to think of a long enough time that would make being a prosecutor:
1. Largely irrelevant to the office and take some power out of a "tough on crime" stance.
2. Not be overly burdensome to the individual.
3. There is also a difference between not being allowed to lobby (which is for financial interest) and not being allowed to put one's name up for office. In some ways, saying Sam Smith can't run for office because he was a prosecutor also hurts the voters who might like that he was a ADA or DA
Almost all law especially litigation contains an emotional aspect of some kind. In civil law, the emotional vexing is usually or can be limited to the parties and their immediate friends/family.
In Criminal law, there is more vexing and often the emotional aspects cannot be limited to the immediately involved parties. Obviously crime and violence are bigger societal issues than a car accident or a breach of contract or easement dispute.
The truth is that I think most people are bit schizophrenic when it comes to criminal law except hardcore law and order types or true believer criminal defense attorneys because they have a broader mission. The rest of us cannot decide when we want prosecutors to be zealous and when we want them to show restraint and judgment and not prosecute or punish lightly.
There does seem to be a psychological desire to punish people we perceive of as cheaters and/or societal transgressors whether they be Scwartz or young minority men smoking marijuana in public:
http://thewalrus.ca/rough-justice/
The problem is that we all have significant disagreements on who deserves prosecutorial zealousness and who does not. My favorite MLK quote is "Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere". This is a wicked problem and seems to be true. Stephen Glass was a journalist who fabricated 40 stories. He then went to law school and passed the California Bar. He was denied a license to practice because of lacking moral character because of his fraud. He appealed his case and won. The moral character committee appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Various legal bloggers do not want him to practice for acceptable reasons. However, one blog was interesting. It noted with rage that the defenses used by Mr. Glass would be scoffed at if said by a young and poor minority instead of by an upper-middle class suburban kid. This is true and wrong but does it justify being possibly unjust to Mr. Glass? Probably not but people did seem willing to law a possible injustice to happen to one person because it happens to others.
The sad truth is that America might divided on so many lines: religion, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc that the only solution is to have a legal system that is harsh to everyone and merciful to no person. This makes me rather depressed. I would like to believe that we can have a justice system that is just and fair to everyone including the criminal and the victim.
I think the biggest problem is that District Attorney is an elected office and even being an ADA can be a good first job for someone who wants to be involved in politics. Every few public defenders get elected or appointed to judgships. This is true in very blue and very red areas.
Turning D.A. into a civil service position (with testing) could help a lot. Also a law preventing DAs or ADAs from running for office until they have been out of the job for 5 years. Though that is probably unconstitutional.
The truth is that there seems to be a desire to punish that is hard-wired into human psychology especially for people we perceive as the "other". Studies show that people would rather punish a cheater even if it means losing an advantage to themselves:
Strangely I've met more Republicans since moving to San Francisco than while living in New York. Largely through law school though all have a kind of cognitive dissonance about them in one way or another. Example: The environmentalist, 9-11 truther who lives in a hippie-liberal part of the Pacific Northwest. There is also the woman who posts super-hippie stuff on facebook which one normally associates with the left-wing.
This sort of stuff has been going on for a while, no? I remember a book coming out years ago called The Big Sort about how Americans were not living in ideologically diverse communities and it was driving us a part and increasing partisanship.
But part of human nature might be that people like surrounding themselves with like-minded people.
Every now and then, someone hits it big later in life and even more against the odds in Hollywood.
Gene Hackman was voted "least likely to succeed" in his acting class (along with Dustin Hoffman) and this was true until he was in his late-30s. He was working as a doorman for a long time before he began getting cast.
On “Coca-Cola Is Just Bad For You”
I'm impressed at how many comments this thread has gotten already.
On “Now That’s More Like It…”
And sometimes colleges make up heart breaking stories completely. Like Notre Dame
On “Commanism”
I guess you are inviting responses from the commatariat,
Are you afraid of losing your position at Cato for this bold endorsement of commanism?
What does a dictatorship of the Oxfordiat look like?
Thank you, I will be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waiter.
"
I guess you can't give them the ribald quote on the "purity" of the English people.
On “Hmmmm…”
I also think that most cases in Continental Europe are handled by a panel of judges who serve as their own investigators/fact finders as well. I need to do a more in-depth study though.
"
I think European governments handle this by making judgeship be a separate academic track in law school.
That being said the Continental system is completely different from the American system. Both have their pros and cons. And I still have faith in juries deciding question of fact.
"
I agree on number 4 but there are plenty of cases where defendants also had ineffective or inadequate assistance of counsel.
That said, M.A. is also on to something.
"
Some questions and thoughts.
We both know that the overwhelming majority of cases plea or settle because the stakes are too high for all parties involved. Also the fact is that if every criminal and/or civil case went to trial, the courts would grind to a halt and cost a lot more money than they do know. It is also true that even though the United States has only 5 percent of the world's population but 25 percent of the world's prison population.
Questions:
1. Do you think it is good and/or necessary that most criminal cases end in a plea deal?
2. Do you think the issue of needing so many cases to plea means that we have a problem with too much crime, too many criminal laws, both, neither?
3. Do you think prosecutorial overzealousness is needed?
4. How often do you think people plead guilty for crimes that they did not commit because it is more rational to go to medium or minimum security for ten years than face f0rty at maximum security? Especially if they are poor and relying on a good-faith but overworked and under-budgeted public defender?
5. Do you think we can have a criminal justice system where number 4 is not an issue? Why or why not?
"
I think I tried to address that above.
The American way seems to be wanting to have your cake and eat it too.
I think a lot of people want zealous prosecution for the stuff that they hate but more mercy for the stuff that does not bother them so much. Unfortunately this depends on who the defendant is often and how similar he or she is to us on tribal lines.
"
Agreed
"
True
But it is also unjust to make people needlessly suffer in order to come up with a worthy punishment for a large organization like HSBC.
I'm frustrated by this as well and certainly think that enacting laws that severely limit the size of banks might be a good idea.
"
The one argument I can make for election of DAs is local control.
Most Californians like most Americans are pro-Capital Punishment. This is not true in San Francisco. It is also not true in a handful of other deep blue areas like Manhattan, Brooklyn, etc.
Every person who wants to be DA in San Francisco or Manhattan knows that they have to promise never to seek the death penalty. If DA became a political appointment, I can see a Governor not caring about local issues like that.
"
The prosecutor in the Swartz case is known for going after white-collar crime.
Like many other people, I am deeply upset about the HSBC decision. The tricky part is how to punish the bank without punishing innocent people caught in the cross-hair. Those people include:
1. The hundreds of thousands or millions of people with ordinary bank accounts and loans at HSBC.
2. The overwhelming majority of employees who did not know and were not involved in the money laundering schemes directly or with knowledge. This includes janitors, secretaries, bank tellers, to probably very high up people. Wouldn't a proper punishment for HSBC be to dismantle the bank completely? At least their US operations? How do you this without wrecking havoc on the economy and many individuals?
"
I am trying to think of a long enough time that would make being a prosecutor:
1. Largely irrelevant to the office and take some power out of a "tough on crime" stance.
2. Not be overly burdensome to the individual.
3. There is also a difference between not being allowed to lobby (which is for financial interest) and not being allowed to put one's name up for office. In some ways, saying Sam Smith can't run for office because he was a prosecutor also hurts the voters who might like that he was a ADA or DA
"
Yup. I am also against the electing of judges.
This is one area where we need less democracy not more.
"
True.
I like the idea of seniority system/civil service exam.
I don't know how it is done in other countries but I think elected DAs (or whatever other jurisdictions call them) are unique to the U.S.
"
Almost all law especially litigation contains an emotional aspect of some kind. In civil law, the emotional vexing is usually or can be limited to the parties and their immediate friends/family.
In Criminal law, there is more vexing and often the emotional aspects cannot be limited to the immediately involved parties. Obviously crime and violence are bigger societal issues than a car accident or a breach of contract or easement dispute.
The truth is that I think most people are bit schizophrenic when it comes to criminal law except hardcore law and order types or true believer criminal defense attorneys because they have a broader mission. The rest of us cannot decide when we want prosecutors to be zealous and when we want them to show restraint and judgment and not prosecute or punish lightly.
There does seem to be a psychological desire to punish people we perceive of as cheaters and/or societal transgressors whether they be Scwartz or young minority men smoking marijuana in public:
http://thewalrus.ca/rough-justice/
The problem is that we all have significant disagreements on who deserves prosecutorial zealousness and who does not. My favorite MLK quote is "Injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere". This is a wicked problem and seems to be true. Stephen Glass was a journalist who fabricated 40 stories. He then went to law school and passed the California Bar. He was denied a license to practice because of lacking moral character because of his fraud. He appealed his case and won. The moral character committee appealed to the California Supreme Court.
Various legal bloggers do not want him to practice for acceptable reasons. However, one blog was interesting. It noted with rage that the defenses used by Mr. Glass would be scoffed at if said by a young and poor minority instead of by an upper-middle class suburban kid. This is true and wrong but does it justify being possibly unjust to Mr. Glass? Probably not but people did seem willing to law a possible injustice to happen to one person because it happens to others.
The sad truth is that America might divided on so many lines: religion, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, etc that the only solution is to have a legal system that is harsh to everyone and merciful to no person. This makes me rather depressed. I would like to believe that we can have a justice system that is just and fair to everyone including the criminal and the victim.
"
Spot on especially in the first paragraph.
"
I think the biggest problem is that District Attorney is an elected office and even being an ADA can be a good first job for someone who wants to be involved in politics. Every few public defenders get elected or appointed to judgships. This is true in very blue and very red areas.
Turning D.A. into a civil service position (with testing) could help a lot. Also a law preventing DAs or ADAs from running for office until they have been out of the job for 5 years. Though that is probably unconstitutional.
The truth is that there seems to be a desire to punish that is hard-wired into human psychology especially for people we perceive as the "other". Studies show that people would rather punish a cheater even if it means losing an advantage to themselves:
http://thewalrus.ca/rough-justice/
On “Conservative Kaelism”
Strangely I've met more Republicans since moving to San Francisco than while living in New York. Largely through law school though all have a kind of cognitive dissonance about them in one way or another. Example: The environmentalist, 9-11 truther who lives in a hippie-liberal part of the Pacific Northwest. There is also the woman who posts super-hippie stuff on facebook which one normally associates with the left-wing.
"
That thick head of brown hair
"
I was going to comment on your golden rod skin tones.
"
This sort of stuff has been going on for a while, no? I remember a book coming out years ago called The Big Sort about how Americans were not living in ideologically diverse communities and it was driving us a part and increasing partisanship.
But part of human nature might be that people like surrounding themselves with like-minded people.
On “I’m No Mathematician, But…”
Every now and then, someone hits it big later in life and even more against the odds in Hollywood.
Gene Hackman was voted "least likely to succeed" in his acting class (along with Dustin Hoffman) and this was true until he was in his late-30s. He was working as a doorman for a long time before he began getting cast.
"
We are in agreement!
It looks like a C minus version of the Brothers Grimm movie with Heath Ledger and Matt Damon. That itself was a poor movie.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.