One of the problems in the justice system is that the jury is only given two options: guilty or not guilty. Yet, if they choose guilty, it automatically empowers the judge to potentially impose a very long sentence. There could be a mandatory minimum sentence as well. So what's the problem? Isn't the defendant either guilty or not guilty? Not necessarily. In many cases, the jury cannot be entirely absolutely certain that the defendant committed the crime. But the circumstances may be so suspicious that the jury does not wish the defendant to "get off the hook". They say that the jury should not find guilt unless there is not "a shadow of doubt", but the reality is that's not how it works. In fact, rarely can we really be completely 100% certain that something happened. It could just be a very unlikely coincidence of evidence coming together, or the defendant could have been framed, by someone else making it appear they committed the crime. The sentence should take into account at least as much the likelihood of whether the defendant might have not committed the crime, as much as the seriousness of the crime itself. Yet should this be all in the domain of the judge during sentencing? A man might have murdered his business partner. He had much to gain from the other man's death. The jury believes the man probably did it, but do not have absolute proof. They might choose to find him guilty just so people like that cannot get away with their crime. Sometimes they just do not want to let a crime go unpunished. Some crimes involve killing, but may or may not be justified. The circumstances as to whether the killing was justified are very murky or ambiguous. For example, a homeowner shoots a supposed intruder. But the person actually killed was very well known to the homeowner, in fact the homeowner was known to have a grudge against him. Other crimes may be so terrible that the threshold used to determine the probability of guilt may be lowered. For example, there might be a serial killer on the loose, who raped and cannibalized his victims. After years of fruitless searching, they finally catch a suspect, with some very suspicious evidence. But they cannot really be entirely sure. It could just be a poor guy and terrible coincidence. Some of the evidence may be of such a quality that no one can even be sure what the probability really is that the evidence actually points in the right direction. Do they just let him go because there might be a tiny possibility he may not be the serial killer they have been looking for? There are some crimes that, by definition, fall within the range of a law with a very harsh penalty. But the crime itself, in this specific instance, may not be that bad. The law may simply be written in a vague, poorly worded manner, that could catch up a wide possibility of smaller acts. In some instances, the defendant may not have been entirely sure that their actions were actually illegal or not. This is not uncommon in complicated tax fraud cases. In fact, many laws are so broadly worded that they could theoretically be used to prosecute acts which those passing the laws never had any intention of making illegal. Maybe the jury has a feeling the defendant probably should have known better, but the law was too confusingly worded. In Scotland, juries have a third verdict option, "Not proven". This casts an air of suspicion over the defendant, but is not enough to sentence him. Also it automatically denies him any possible compensation for having been arrested and possibly held for months in jail before his trial. Limiting the juries verdict to two options can really deny justice. Either the jury has to let someone get away because there was a small possibility they might be innocent (and they do not want an innocent man to be jailed the rest of his life), or the jury has to basically approve an excessive punishment for a crime that they cannot be sure the defendant even committed.
Actually, the defendant is either guilty or not. He certainly can't be both, and he either committed the crime or not; there is no avoiding the fact that he is either guilty or innocent. The standard is not 'beyond a shadow of a doubt', but 'beyond a reasonable doubt, a much lower standard. Who do you propose? If this is the case, then justice has miscarried. The jury found a man guilty without meeting the criteria for such a finding. Some crimes involve killing, but may or may not be justified. The circumstances as to whether the killing was justified are very murky or ambiguous. For example, a homeowner shoots a supposed intruder. But the person actually killed was very well known to the homeowner, in fact the homeowner was known to have a grudge against him. The judge presumably knows this and can set the verdict aside and order a new trial or even acquit him. Not legally. This is the purpose of the Grand Jury. Then it is the law that is the problem, not the legal system. So you believe that people who are not guilty of crimes should be punished anyway? Please give a rationale for such a practice. Are you trying to say that all punishments are excessive? If they are, then it is the laws that are at fault, not the legal system that administers them.
I am just asking why it has to be either all or nothing. And suggesting the jury should have more input when it comes to sentencing. Sometimes there are cases that are very ambiguous. The jury just does not know. There are a huge number of laws that are poorly written and very broad. Sometimes the jury believes the actions of the defendant were wrong, but is not really sure that the defendant had fair notice in the law his actions were actually illegal. Sorry, I do not have time to go into specific examples. That's not necessarily true, there are countless laws which can criminalize things which are not absolutely wrong from the perspective of the average person. And sometimes guilt can be pretty murky. For example, the defendant may have been in a group, and they know one of the members in the group committed the murder but they do not know which one. Then the question is how much guilt is the defendant liable for through association? To what degree did he assist the murder or help cover it up? Or are there things he should have known, but just chose to look the other way? It's not always a clear guilty or not guilty scenario. That lower standard can result in injustice. Should not someone be punished more if the jury is absolutely certain he did it, than someone else where there is a small chance they might not have done it? Trials are expensive to hold. Should the jury really be forced into a position where they absolutely have to choose either finding the defendant guilty of a serious crime, or just letting him go without any punishment? I think the jury should be given more possible latitude in its findings. What if the defendant is guilty, but only of something really minor, and the judge chooses to impose an excessively harsh sentence for some reason? There is so many laws. And they often make the laws intentionally vague and broad on purpose so the prosecutor can go after whomever they want. The reality is they are never going to go back and rewrite all those poorly written laws. It would be easier for the jury to be able to have some say in sorting it out. No, but that is what happens in actual practice. I just believe it is better for these people to be found "partially guilty" than fully guilty. You have two defendants accused of separate murders. For one of them, there is a 70% chance that he committed the murder. For the other, there is a 99% probability that he committed the murder. Do you think it would be inappropriate to give the second defendant a greater punishment? Ideally, yes. But in practice all those laws are never going to be straightened out. If I can make an analogy, it is like saying we don't need repairmen to fix defective pipes, because it is the pipes that should have been made correctly in the first place. The huge number of laws on the books are a complete disaster, a crazy quilt of different incongruous laws made at different times, which don't quite all fit together. Many of them could theoretically be used to criminalize behaviors that are common place and generally not regarded as illegal.
The truth is the system is not as black and white as you paint it. There is more than one standard of "guiltiness." The three major standards are: 1. Preponderance of evidence (more than 50% sure the person is guilty) 2. Beyond reasonable doubt (90-95% sure) 3. Clear and convincing evidence (somewhere in between) Those are essentially three different levels of "guiltiness." Jurors are not asked to prove whether someone is 100% guilty vs. 0% guilty.
If there was a third verdict option, "guilty but not beyond a shadow of doubt", it is likely that many defendants who are now found guilty would instead be found "semi-guilty", and a smaller number of defendants who are now being found innocent would instead be found "semi-guilty", because the jurors would know the accused would not face too harsh of a punishment. I believe it would result in better application of justice, instead of just giving so much power and discretion to the judge after the defendant has been found guilty. Just because someone breaks a law (and there are people who have done so unknowingly) does not mean they should lose all rights and be at the complete mercy of a judge.
You're quite naïve if you think the US judicial system is about justice (or the truth). It is simply an adversarial arena in which the 2 sides attempt to convince a panel to accept their arguments over the other side's arguments.
Because a person is either entirely guilty of a crime and should be punished or entirely innocent and deserving of freedom. It really is that simple. There is no such thing as more guilty or less guilty. Guilt, like pregnant, is an absolute: one either is or is not. Why? The jury doesn't know the law. Then they should not convict. Again, this is a problem with the law and not the legal system. I have no problem with tightening up laws. I do have a problem with tinkering with the legal system. It works far more often than it fails. It may surprise you to find this out, but ignorance of the law is not an excuse. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter. One is either guilty of a crime or not. Again, one is either guilty or not. Punishing the innocent for deeds they didn't commit is wrong. If this means we must charge the guilty with lesser crimes or let them go free, that's the way it should be. As you said, absolutes are difficult to find. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard and it is a good one. Yes. A person is either guilty and deserving of punishment, or not. There's no getting around it. Judges are not free to impose whatever sentence they want. There are guidelines. Minor crimes get minor punishments. If you don't know the law and how it is applied to the activities you engage in, stop until you do. This is what lawyers are for. So you think it's better to punish the innocent a little bit because you suspect they might have committed a crime? Do I have that right? Why have courts at all then? All we need is cops to arrest and punish anyone they suspect! What a savings all round! If they are convicted, they are each 100% convicted. All else being equal, the sentences should be equal as well.
So someone with an 80% chance of having committed a crime should be found not guilty, while someone with a 90% chance of having committed the crime should be found guilty? (even if those numbers are not exactly right, you see what I am trying to convey here) These types of extreme cut-offs do not seem to offer the most justice. That is not how I see it. There are all sorts of laws that could be applied to all sorts of different possible situations. It's not always a simple "Did the defendant murder him or not?" There are many cases where even if the prosecutor and defense agree on all the facts, the jury still is not sure whether the defendant is guilty or not. Because laws can be vague or broadly written, as they could apply to some situations. It may surprise you to find this out, but even if the defendant knew what all the laws were, he still may not have known that his actions could be construed to be against the law. Prosecutors often throw charges at a defendant to try to "make something stick", they can get pretty creative. Those predetermined guidelines cannot anticipate all the possible cases that could arise. Ideally, yes. But the laws are never going to be perfect, and the system needs to be able to better accommodate problems with the law when these situations happen.
There has to be a cutoff at some point. Nor is it arbitrary. In a jury trial, the verdict is unanimous among the jurors. If they can't agree, the prosecutor and judge decide whether or not to retry the case. The solution you propose is more arbitrary, not less: you admit your system will punish innocents. That depends on whether you feel it is more important to protect the innocent or punish the guilty. IMO it is more important that the innocent go free than the guilty be punished. Surely it is. A law was either violated or not. It really is that simple. A good reason to have juries. The judge explains the law and the charge to them. If the jury can't decide if the law was violated, then the defendant should be acquitted. Again, your problem seems to be with particular laws. Bad laws should be reformed to make a good system run better; we shouldn't reform a good system to make bad laws work better. Ignorance is not an excuse. The point being? No law can anticipate every possible instance of what should be punished. This is why we have judges. In what way would your system be better? Surely if a defendant is found, say, 60% guilty he should receive 60% of the sentence recommended, taking the same mitigating and aggravating factors into account. Your system creates more problems than it solves IMO.
A prior conviction (i.e. rape) can permanently ruin someone's reputation for the rest of their life. Maybe there should be some way for the jury to express a small reservation of doubt, while simultaneously allowing them to convict. So the verdict could be "guilty, with reservations", which would look better than just a simple "guilty". This could also affect the sentencing too.
no, we require 100% guilty confirmation, in order to PARTIALLY offset the HUGE advantage that the prosecution has in any trial. It costs the prosecution NOTHING to have huge investigations and siezures done. The defense can do nothing of the kind and what it CAN do, is done at the cost of millions of $ for the defendant to pay.
so much of the 'discretion' you want to hand over to jurors in their verdict, ought to be reserved for sentencing hearings. 'Maximum minimums' and three strike laws encumber judges who are trained to use their independent judgement to determine the intangibles that may warrant a greater or lighter sentence. When legislators decide that they can best determine ultimate justice in trial outcomes in 2015, from a legislative subcommittee hearing held in 1992 surrounded by the throw- away- the- key crowd, you got serious problems in the application of sentencing and justice. Incompetent and demented judges need removal secondary to the recommendation of fellow members of the bar, but tying the hands of sentencing magistrates reacting to political or mob pressures, is just plain stupid.
I agree, but that's still too much discretion being held in the hands of one person. Sometimes individuals can do something that could be technically construed as illegal, but is not really that bad. I remember reading one story where an American defense contractor got in trouble for selling a simple keyboard to the government of India without the proper export permit (and the law was not even clear that doing so was against the law). He could have faced 20 years in prison, if the judge did not like him. He ended up facing 6 months in prison and a $90,000 fine. The keyboard was intended to be used with a small prototype centrifuge (that was legally exported), but that could also be used to operate a larger centrifuge that the company had legally arranged with another company to be exported from Switzerland, the centrifuges being used for uranium isotope separation. It is extremely rare that a judge is ever removed. They would have to do something really bad, and really obvious, to ever be impeached. They can basically do whatever they want, so long as they do not incur the wrath of the legislature. For some of them, the power really goes to their heads and they become arrogant, sometimes even vindictive at times. They can toy with people's lives, and they know they're not going to face any repercussions.
It rarely takes impeachment. Often less formal pressures are at work. Subtle and not so subtle hints and conversations by colleagues that it is time to hang up the robe sometimes do the job. Cutting remarks by council or staff may get it through thicker skins and then there is an entirely separate system of the State Bar disciplinary process to discuss. There is also trial by voter in many jurisdictions as well as more and more judges are elected. I agree that before we' ll ever get rid of legislative micromanagement of sentencing, we are going to have to come up with better answers for incompetence on the bench though. some bad apples and bad decisions with press coverage will kill any momentum for change in which legislatures give back up their authority regulate criminal court sentencing. See above
You think any judge is going to forfeit his guaranteed lifetime income? There are substantial financial repercussions if they choose premature retirement. The bad ones have pretty thick heads, and most council do not want to jeopardize their careers by speaking harsh criticism. There's a saying: Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That's certainly the case in some of these instances. Complaints to the Bar association never result in anything. They are lawyers and they protect their own. It's not exactly a profession known for ethical integrity. There's no real incentive to do anything. Many lawyers are afraid to mess with a judge because that could run the risk of damage to their careers. The reality is simply that the checks and balances that exist are simply not adequate, and there are not really any special safeguards in place.
WHAT training do judges get (at being fair or being a judge? In most places, they are elected, same as any other politician. almost all ARE lawyers, or legal scholars, but such is often not a legal requirment, not at all.
This is not the case in the US. It is a common misconception. If the person is not unanimously agreed by the jury to be not guilty, then they can be put to trial again if they are not found guilty unanimously as well. Doesn't happen a lot, but people do periodically get re-indicted and go through the process 2 or 3 times until they are found guilty or the prosecutor just gives up trying.
Private lawyers. But never prosecutors. The few times they do get disbarred is for something they did in their private lives, rarely corruption or job misconduct, but never for inappropriate prosecution. To draw an analogy, that would be like a doctor killing multiple patients on the operating table and being more concerned he could lose his license over fraudulent insurance billing.
Not to be argumentative, but your example #1 refers to civil proceedings, not criminal. And in 15 years in law enforcement, the only time I've heard something similar to #3 is before a grand jury, which is only charged with determining whether there is enough evidence to warrant prosecution, not guilt/innocence. Enjoy!
In America, we don't think a jurors feelings should empower them to harm a defendant. Either the defendant can be proven guilty, and it is therefore a fact and not an opinion that he's committed a crime, or the courts are not empowered to penalize him. And if the law is poorly worded, fix the darn law.
Most States, maybe all, have some process to even go to trial, all designed to keep innocents from being harmed. A plea agreement is generally tried, when questionable but some form of a Grand Jury is supposed to keep the innocent from a trial, the trial/jury the final arbiter.
And a verdict of 'Not guilty' would look better still. A reasonable doubt leads to an acquittal under our system. Absent that doubt, a verdict of 'Guilty' should be returned. In this way, the innocent are protected instead of punished. Is your system intended to punish more guilty parties, accepting injustice for the innocent as collateral damage? How can you justify this?
The reality is that there is rarely absolute 100% certainty that the accused is guilty. There are many cases where the accused seems to be guilty, but there is a slight probability they could be innocent. The system I am proposing is both intended to punish more guilty parties and to greatly reduce the punishment for those who might be innocent. It just does not make sense to have a sudden cutoff. For example, 80% chance they committed the crime they are found innocent, 90% chance committed the crime they are found guilty (or whatever the percentages are you want to use). Wouldn't it make more sense to add an additional tier? What are you going to do when there is someone who you think should be punished, but there is still a lingering doubt in the back of your mind whether they actually are guilty? There might be some doubt, but it might not have quite reached the threshold of being "reasonable". The reality is that juries convict when there is doubt all the time, there's a human psychological desire not to want to see any serious crime go unpunished. There's also a human psychological desire that makes it difficult to see things in terms of probabilities, especially when emotions run high. For example, there could be a terrible brutal rape. Most jurors are going to have difficulty with the concept that the defendant has a 65% chance of being guilty. Emotions have a hard time attaching to uncertain possibilities, and lawyers in a court room really try to bring out the jury's emotions. If you don't believe people who could be innocent should be punished, fine. What threshold of probability do you want to use? 99% ? If that's the case, there's going to be many criminals who go free. I do not even know if a criminal justice system could even reasonably function at that high of a threshold. And if that's the system you want to put in place, it just seems completely asinine that a murderer with a 98% chance of guilt goes free, while one only slightly more likely to be guilty gets convicted.
