Kerry Concedes to Bush

[Adron]

To address the other part of the statement, the implication that a corrupt accusation should be easy to defeat: yes, it should, but it usually isn't.  During jury selection, each side is permitted a small number of dismissals, so you can get rid of the unacceptable jurors before you waste time presenting evidence to them.  This is intended to be for situations like a juror who has already reached a decision before opening statements.   "He just looks like such a nice young man, he's definitely innocent."  This also goes the other way, dismissing people who might have undue bias against the defendent (e.g. cops in a case against an alleged cop-killer), or who are deemed to be a little too trusting ("Would you believe any testimony from a cop?"  "Of course."  "Why?"  "Because he's a cop."  <Judge> Next!).

I suppose that makes a bit sense, but how are people for a jury / the replacements selected?

Anyway, lawyers who are out for victory in a frivolous suit will pick their dismissals to get rid of certain classes of people, such as the college-educated (particularly masters/PhD), on the assumption these people are highly analytical and won't readily succumb to theatrics.  The result is that the jury ends up composed of the less competent section of the populace, which can be more easily manipulated with theatrics and appeals to irrational emotion.

That sounds like a really really stupid system. Are suits/trials generally handled by a jury there? Here, very few cases are handled by a jury. What I can think of is issues related to freedom of press mostly. Crimes and suits are handled by judges, either lay judges elected (politically) for four year terms, or legally trained, professional judges, depending on what the case is about. You can't somehow get a group of non-analytical people to judge your case.

In the case you mention about coffee, an emotional appeal might include the alleged victim testifying about all the problems the scalding has caused him.  The problems it caused him are a direct consequence of his spilling the coffee on himself, and thus are as much (or as little) his fault as the original spillage, but the emotionally-susceptible jurors will generally be swayed more in his favor by a good tear-jerker story.

I.e., they judge by emotion, not reason? Like lynch mobs judge by emotion instead of justice?

[Side note on terminology, in case you haven't seen this before: frivolous lawsuit is the term commonly applied to suits that are allowed by the system despite that most people with a little common sense would say that the suit has no place in the court system.]

Yes, I'd seen that term, and the hope I had was that corrupt lawyers would be found to make frivolous lawsuits, and that there'd be suitable punishments for them.

[Kp]

Trimming your quotes of me for brevity.

I suppose that makes a bit sense, but how are people for a jury / the replacements selected?

It varies some by area (I think), but it's a fundamentally random selection of people from the eligible populace.  Someone is ineligible if he's imprisoned, among other reasons.  I'd have to go look up the exact circumstances that make someone not eligible to serve on a jury.  Replacements are generally selected in advance.  That is, they call up far more people than they actually need, so that they can prune out some jurors without needing to stop in the middle to go find more.

That sounds like a really really stupid system. Are suits/trials generally handled by a jury there? Here, very few cases are handled by a jury. What I can think of is issues related to freedom of press mostly. Crimes and suits are handled by judges, either lay judges elected (politically) for four year terms, or legally trained, professional judges, depending on what the case is about. You can't somehow get a group of non-analytical people to judge your case.

It was a good theory ("jury of your peers" etc.), but the implementation does leave a bit to be desired.   The original theory was to guard against the government preselecting a jury composed entirely of people who would find the way it wanted to find.  While it's good to guard against that (since such a system would entirely invalidate the point of having a trial if the govt. were permitted to predetermine the outcome with 100% reliability), the existing implementation has some serious shortcomings.  Answering your question in greater detail would require a bit of research, since the law about what is allowed / what is required varies depending on location of alleged offense and nature/value of the offense.  For instance, Texas permits the defendant to demand a jury trial for just about anything, even traffic tickets.  However, the law doesn't require that you have a jury trial for that if you're willing to have a judge-only trial.  Other states probably do it differently.

I.e., they judge by emotion, not reason? Like lynch mobs judge by emotion instead of justice?

Some of them do, yes.  When dealing with those jurors, the trial can degenerate to "who has the most depressing sob story?"  Bear in mind that I'm highlighting all the failings.  There are times when our legal system actually works pretty ok.

Yes, I'd seen that term, and the hope I had was that corrupt lawyers would be found to make frivolous lawsuits, and that there'd be suitable punishments for them.

Well, I did hear an anecdote about one lawyer who, after making her living suing her neighbors for frivolous things, finally annoyed a judge enough that now she must have judicial permission to file a lawsuit.   That kind of thing is quite rare though.

There've been some attempts to modify the legal code to cut down on frivolous suits and/or discourage them by making them not valuable (e.g. cap the "non-economic" damages, which is where the big money comes in because nobody can prove how much or how little is deserved).  Such efforts have been met with opposition from lawyers' groups for obvious reasons, and with opposition from people who feel (maybe rightly, depends on situation) that the cap is "too low", which would deny real victims an appropriate amount.  What constitutes the "right" cap is a matter of hot debate whenever this comes up.  I'm rather disappointed to note that I haven't yet heard of anybody with the foresight to make it an adjustable limit.  IIRC, the U.S. constitution has a section about disputes which exceed $20.  At the time, that was big money.  Now, the average college student (who is notoriously broke) owns several times that amount.

[Adron]

Trimming your quotes of me for brevity.

That's good, as long as you leave enough for context. I tend to have to trim two layers when I reply to most other posters!

That is, they call up far more people than they actually need, so that they can prune out some jurors without needing to stop in the middle to go find more.

Can both parties prune out jurors? Couldn't the other party prune out all jurors that seem too stupid?

It was a good theory ("jury of your peers" etc.), but the implementation does leave a bit to be desired.   The original theory was to guard against the government preselecting a jury composed entirely of people who would find the way it wanted to find.  While it's good to guard against that (since such a system would entirely invalidate the point of having a trial if the govt. were permitted to predetermine the outcome with 100% reliability), the existing implementation has some serious shortcomings.

It does sound like some serious shortcomings. Making small random selections isn't a good idea at all. If you pick a large group, the probability of getting a good sample, with a representative average, may be reasonable, but a group of 6 or 12 really isn't enough. 

Interestingly enough, Sweden has separate courts for crime cases and civil cases, vs cases where the government is acting as a part with an interest. Maybe that would've been a better solution for you too.

For instance, Texas permits the defendant to demand a jury trial for just about anything, even traffic tickets.  However, the law doesn't require that you have a jury trial for that if you're willing to have a judge-only trial.  Other states probably do it differently.

I actually looked up a pdf document in English about the Swedish legal system in case it'd be required...    

Anyway, you consider a random jury trial to be greater than a trial by judges? Here, a crime case is first tried by 3 laymen judges and 1 legally trained one. If you appeal, you get 3 legally trained judges and 2 laymen. And finally if you go to the supreme court, you get 5 legally trained judges. And if those want to rule against a previous supreme court ruling, the case is handled by either 9 supreme court judges, or all of them.

Shouldn't legally trained judges be better suited to interpreting law and administering justice than some randomly selected people from the street?

Some of them do, yes.  When dealing with those jurors, the trial can degenerate to "who has the most depressing sob story?"  Bear in mind that I'm highlighting all the failings.  There are times when our legal system actually works pretty ok.

Don't you think that has to do with the properties of picking a random sample out of a large population?

Well, I did hear an anecdote about one lawyer who, after making her living suing her neighbors for frivolous things, finally annoyed a judge enough that now she must have judicial permission to file a lawsuit.   That kind of thing is quite rare though.

This is another interesting thing I've noticed. Are judges free to declare whatever punishments they like? It seems they can do strange things...

[Kp]

We're getting into details that may vary from place to place, but I'll answer as best I can.   If this goes on much longer, I'm going to need to start doing research (for which I don't have time) or go find a law student to answer this.

That is, they call up far more people than they actually need, so that they can prune out some jurors without needing to stop in the middle to go find more.

Can both parties prune out jurors? Couldn't the other party prune out all jurors that seem too stupid?

Yes, both parties can prune.  However, stupid jurors aren't necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of the party with the hopeless case (i.e. there's a dozen eyewitnesses against you => case is pretty hopeless without technicalities).  I don't know offhand how excessive pruning is prevented, although I'd expect it to include a limit on the number of dismissals (which iirc is in effect).

It was a good theory ("jury of your peers" etc.), but the implementation does leave a bit to be desired.   The original theory was to guard against the government preselecting a jury composed entirely of people who would find the way it wanted to find.  While it's good to guard against that (since such a system would entirely invalidate the point of having a trial if the govt. were permitted to predetermine the outcome with 100% reliability), the existing implementation has some serious shortcomings.

It does sound like some serious shortcomings. Making small random selections isn't a good idea at all. If you pick a large group, the probability of getting a good sample, with a representative average, may be reasonable, but a group of 6 or 12 really isn't enough.

A fairly large sampling is picked (dozens or hundreds, as I understand it - though I've never been picked so I can't say), then some of those are assigned to cases, and some of those assigned are dismissed for various reasons.  As regards choice of judges, the U.S. system was designed with an eye toward limiting the power of a corrupt government, which arguably could be why a system similar to yours was not adopted.  Consider the ramifications if all the trained judges received a memo of who to rule against.  I doubt anything like that has ever happened (and the odds that it ever will are small), but such a situation is less damaging under the U.S. system where you'd also need to control the jury.  (For now, ignore the contempt-of-court laws, which grant judges exceedingly wide latitude.)

For instance, Texas permits the defendant to demand a jury trial for just about anything, even traffic tickets.  However, the law doesn't require that you have a jury trial for that if you're willing to have a judge-only trial.  Other states probably do it differently.

Anyway, you consider a random jury trial to be greater than a trial by judges? Here, a crime case is first tried by 3 laymen judges and 1 legally trained one. If you appeal, you get 3 legally trained judges and 2 laymen. And finally if you go to the supreme court, you get 5 legally trained judges. And if those want to rule against a previous supreme court ruling, the case is handled by either 9 supreme court judges, or all of them.

Shouldn't legally trained judges be better suited to interpreting law and administering justice than some randomly selected people from the street?

Probably so, but see above how some areas had their systems designed with serious distrust of subsequent govt. officials as a key part of the design.  Also, U.S. judges do serve some purpose in keeping the lawyers within the general intent of the law.

Some of them do, yes.  When dealing with those jurors, the trial can degenerate to "who has the most depressing sob story?"  Bear in mind that I'm highlighting all the failings.  There are times when our legal system actually works pretty ok.

Don't you think that has to do with the properties of picking a random sample out of a large population?

To some extent, yes.  However, poorly designed laws don't help much.  (Take a look at almost any computer crime law, for example.  When CupHead was accused, I read through some of the Colorado law, and it was a mess IMO.

Well, I did hear an anecdote about one lawyer who, after making her living suing her neighbors for frivolous things, finally annoyed a judge enough that now she must have judicial permission to file a lawsuit.   That kind of thing is quite rare though.

This is another interesting thing I've noticed. Are judges free to declare whatever punishments they like? It seems they can do strange things...

Offhand, I don't know.  Perhaps a legal scholar of the board can answer you better.  *pokes Grok*

[Adron]

Yes, both parties can prune.  However, stupid jurors aren't necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of the party with the hopeless case (i.e. there's a dozen eyewitnesses against you => case is pretty hopeless without technicalities).  I don't know offhand how excessive pruning is prevented, although I'd expect it to include a limit on the number of dismissals (which iirc is in effect).

I.e. the party with the hopeless case might be way more interested in a go in a mud slinging match instead of having justice?

It does sound like some serious shortcomings. Making small random selections isn't a good idea at all. If you pick a large group, the probability of getting a good sample, with a representative average, may be reasonable, but a group of 6 or 12 really isn't enough.

A fairly large sampling is picked (dozens or hundreds, as I understand it - though I've never been picked so I can't say), then some of those are assigned to cases, and some of those assigned are dismissed for various reasons.

Well, if you from that large sampling don't then dismiss people based on qualifications like "prone to judge based on emotion rather than law", it's still just a random set of people, and an insufficient sample of the population to always come up with a reasonable set of people.

As regards choice of judges, the U.S. system was designed with an eye toward limiting the power of a corrupt government, which arguably could be why a system similar to yours was not adopted.  Consider the ramifications if all the trained judges received a memo of who to rule against.  I doubt anything like that has ever happened (and the odds that it ever will are small), but such a situation is less damaging under the U.S. system where you'd also need to control the jury.  (For now, ignore the contempt-of-court laws, which grant judges exceedingly wide latitude.)

What about the supreme court in the US? Couldn't those still receive a memo of who to rule against, and they're able to overrule lower courts?

But honestly, I think it'd be easier to control a jury than trained judges. People serving on a jury may be homeless or low income takers, right? What's to stop you from pressuring/bribing the jury when you're already worried about pressure/bribes on judges?

see above how some areas had their systems designed with serious distrust of subsequent govt. officials as a key part of the design.  Also, U.S. judges do serve some purpose in keeping the lawyers within the general intent of the law.

..

  However, poorly designed laws don't help much.  (Take a look at almost any computer crime law, for example.  When CupHead was accused, I read through some of the Colorado law, and it was a mess IMO.

Working around untrusted government officials doesn't sound like the best way to design a system. And poorly designed laws.... Well, we do have those here too. But anyway: Redesign your system!

Are judges free to declare whatever punishments they like? It seems they can do strange things...

Wakey wakey Grok & co?

[Kp]

Yes, both parties can prune.  However, stupid jurors aren't necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of the party with the hopeless case (i.e. there's a dozen eyewitnesses against you => case is pretty hopeless without technicalities).  I don't know offhand how excessive pruning is prevented, although I'd expect it to include a limit on the number of dismissals (which iirc is in effect).

I.e. the party with the hopeless case might be way more interested in a go in a mud slinging match instead of having justice?

Exactly!

It does sound like some serious shortcomings. Making small random selections isn't a good idea at all. If you pick a large group, the probability of getting a good sample, with a representative average, may be reasonable, but a group of 6 or 12 really isn't enough.

A fairly large sampling is picked (dozens or hundreds, as I understand it - though I've never been picked so I can't say), then some of those are assigned to cases, and some of those assigned are dismissed for various reasons.

Well, if you from that large sampling don't then dismiss people based on qualifications like "prone to judge based on emotion rather than law", it's still just a random set of people, and an insufficient sample of the population to always come up with a reasonable set of people.

You didn't ask a question, and since I'm not exactly a strident supporter of the current system , there's no reason for me to even try to refute you.

What about the supreme court in the US? Couldn't those still receive a memo of who to rule against, and they're able to overrule lower courts?

The supreme court can overrule any lower court, but only if the case comes to it.  Courts can't just go looking for cases they'd like to make a ruling on -- the case has to come to them.

But honestly, I think it'd be easier to control a jury than trained judges. People serving on a jury may be homeless or low income takers, right? What's to stop you from pressuring/bribing the jury when you're already worried about pressure/bribes on judges?

Back when some of these systems were designed, jury selection was much stricter than it is now.  Most things then were restricted to white property-owning males (thus excluding the homeless and making the low income folks less likely).  There're laws against trying to improperly influence trials, and the odds of successfully influencing all the jurors (and not having any of them report you) are pretty poor, with a totally random sampling of jurors.  It's theoretically possible, but it's extremely improbable.

Working around untrusted government officials doesn't sound like the best way to design a system. And poorly designed laws.... Well, we do have those here too. But anyway: Redesign your system!

The systems I'm familiar with were set up in the immediate aftermath of serious abuses of the prior system, so "How can we prevent this from ever recurring?" was probably a big influencing factor.  They recognized that they couldn't just omit a judicial system and let crimes go unpunished, but they wanted to make it difficult for the system to be abused to punish people unjustly.  Even that limit is itself somewhat limited by the power of Congress to revise laws.  The only way to be really sure is to build it directly into the constitution and hope that the people will refuse to ratify changes that strip out key constitutional protections.

[Adron]

The supreme court can overrule any lower court, but only if the case comes to it.  Courts can't just go looking for cases they'd like to make a ruling on -- the case has to come to them.

But an abusive government could just appeal until they reach the supreme court and then settle the case their way?

Back when some of these systems were designed, jury selection was much stricter than it is now.  Most things then were restricted to white property-owning males (thus excluding the homeless and making the low income folks less likely).

Ah. A case where the constitution is outdated again
That would probably improve things a lot, because successful people can't be all that dumb. Unless they inherited it all, but those will run out of money eventually.

There're laws against trying to improperly influence trials, and the odds of successfully influencing all the jurors (and not having any of them report you) are pretty poor, with a totally random sampling of jurors.  It's theoretically possible, but it's extremely improbable.

But you have to think about what we're facing here... You said the idea was to keep the people safe from the government. It would've been enough to make a law against influencing the judges? And if the government is republican and wants republican verdicts, all it has to do is get republican jurors, by kicking the others out or arresting them for fictious crimes long enough to get them out of the jury seats?

If the government could get away with influencing judges against the law, it could surely get away with influencing jurors against the law as well.

The systems I'm familiar with were set up in the immediate aftermath of serious abuses of the prior system, so "How can we prevent this from ever recurring?" was probably a big influencing factor.  They recognized that they couldn't just omit a judicial system and let crimes go unpunished, but they wanted to make it difficult for the system to be abused to punish people unjustly.  Even that limit is itself somewhat limited by the power of Congress to revise laws.  The only way to be really sure is to build it directly into the constitution and hope that the people will refuse to ratify changes that strip out key constitutional protections.

But the congress is selected by the people, so indirectly the people make the laws..
What kind of abuse could there be that only this would protect from?