Probably a lot more like the courts before the 1960s. A lot more discretion for judges, a lot less mandatory procedures that have to be followed. My mother's job (back in the 1980s) was pre-sentencing social enquiry reports.
-
-
Replying to @anomalyuk @Outsideness
I agree that there are too many formalities which judges are forced to observe. That said, the huge costs associated with trials have given rise to our plea-bargain regime, which I imagine is more efficient than any sort of trial, no matter how efficient.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cultofunreason @Outsideness
We don't have plea-bargaining to the same extent in Britain. It seems like it has the tendency to become more unjust over time as prosecutors learn to manipulate it. The safeguards that have been added to trials are counterproductive if that's the outcome.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk @Outsideness
Admitting guilt over 'disturbing the peace' seems like a small price to pay to avoid a hate speech conviction. Anyways, 'efficient justice' is having your cake and eating it too. Plea-bargaining strikes as good a balance as anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cultofunreason @Outsideness
There's a tradeoff in principle between justice and efficiency. My position is that the system is so inefficient that injustices appear as a result. Plea-bargaining would be an example of that. Long times spent on remand are another.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @anomalyuk @Outsideness
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cultofunreason @Outsideness
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @anomalyuk @Outsideness
My solution: cops bludgeon minor offenders, and let them walk.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
-
-
Replying to @anomalyuk @Outsideness
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.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.