criminal or civil? the latter is already trending in that direction, but as to the former, i disagree.
-
-
plea-bargaining is a response to a felt necessity. i'm losing the plot here, but my main point was that, in the criminal context, the judicial system is doing about as good as it can. i think the problems are, generally speaking, legislative in nature.
-
as for the demographic-precondition issue, I'd rather have the chance to plea-bargain (because of high trial costs) than go up before an arbiter. Hell, I'd rather try my luck with unfriendly jurors than an unfriendly inquisitor.
-
Juries are a good idea if the people you live among are like you and have the same values as you. I think that's increasingly not the case. The high trial costs are the whole issue here. I'm saying bring them down, and be brutal about it if necessary.
-
If you can't bring them down, the only remaining response possible is to have fewer trials, and plea-bargaining is a reasonable way to do that. As I said, an order-of-magnitude reduction in cost is what is needed.
-
My solution: cops bludgeon minor offenders, and let them walk.
-
Trials and juries and presumption of innocence are all good things, but they're not free, and if the state is no longer effective enough to be able to provide them while still maintaining order, then we lose them. Simple as that. Crying "muh rights" doesn't change anything.
-
Of course, but given cultural realities I'd like to maintain them for as long as possible. Order gainz, by my calculus, aren't worth converting our criminal justice system to the universities' sexual assault-tribunal model.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.