Complexity is exactly why you need a judge and not a computer. The other countries where judges have more power solve both of your concerns by having professional judges instead of elected ones.
Complexity is exactly why you need a judge and not a computer. The other countries where judges have more power solve both of your concerns by having professional judges instead of elected ones.
You overestimate how much discretion judges have in these countries, while underestimating the detail and specificity of their laws.
Do you have a specific example of the outcome you describe?
Just sayin'. Without specific examples of this working well, your assertion is just howling in the dark. If what you describe is indeed so widespread outside of the US, then examples should be aplenty.
Just sayin'. Without specific examples of this working well, your assertion is just howling in the dark. If what you describe is indeed so widespread outside of the US, then examples should be aplenty.
Well, consider this. How come there aren't Farks in nice countries? They don't have enough injustice bullshit to make a Fark.
There are Farks in other countries. Fark covers those countries, and that news is just as farked.
Let's find some of those Farks and mine them for ToTD.
Gold mine regions are:
1. Baltic states 2. Italian coastal towns 3. German tourists abroad basically anywhere 4. Hong Kong stories about rampaging mainlanders 5. Russia 6. Russia 7. Russia
There are Farks in other countries. Fark covers those countries, and that news is just as farked.
Let's find some of those Farks and mine them for ToTD.
Gold mine regions are:
1. Baltic states 2. Italian coastal towns 3. German tourists abroad basically anywhere 4. Hong Kong stories about rampaging mainlanders 5. Russia 6. Russia 7. Russia
None of those are places with quality courts. Quite the opposite.
But you can't be sure that the other thing is "good" if that thing's "goodness" may well just be a side effect of the other good things.
Also, you have no examples.
That's what happens when you try to make an argument on principle that can't be Google'd. I'm actually trying to find examples for either side, and Google is failing.
1) A case where the law called for injustice, but the power of a judge prevented it. 2) A case where the law called for justice and prevented a judge from making an unjust ruling. 3) A case where the law called for justice, but a powerful judge made an unjust ruling. 4) A case where the law called for injustice, and the judge had no power to prevent it even though they wanted to.
There was that one case where the guy stole a loaf of bread to feed his starving family and ended up serving like 20 years.
He ended up making a new life after he got out - ran a business of some repute and became the mayor of his town. The cop who put him away originally was still trying to bust him years later, kind of went off the deep end
Plea bargains are not what I'm advocating for. In fact, I am against the whole plea bargain system. I'm only talking about situations where the consequences of strictly obeying the text of a law run counter to the purpose of the law.
If a tax law fails to tax because there is some trick to avoid it. If the anti-sex offender law punishes people who not sex offenders. When an environmental protection regulation punishes someone for doing something that is actually helpful to the environment. These kinds of things.
My point about American culture is that your positive non-American examples are due, as Rym mentioned, to more than merely the nature of the justice system. Those nations have a greater spirit of social responsibility and accountability. And laws do not so much change culture, as culture changes the enactment/enforcement of laws. The appeals process would get more overloaded. And there is no way most Americans would actually respect the authority of the court without its veneer of objectivity.
My point about American culture is that your positive non-American examples are due, as Rym mentioned, to more than merely the nature of the justice system. Those nations have a greater spirit of social responsibility and accountability. And laws do not so much change culture, as culture changes the enactment/enforcement of laws. The appeals process would get more overloaded. And there is no way most Americans would actually respect the authority of the court without its veneer of objectivity.
I don't believe in not doing something because people will reject it. I always remember the Citgo sign in Boston. When it went up, everyone hated it and thought it was an abomination. But they put it up anyway. Then when they wanted to take it down years later, OH NO, not our landmark!
If something is a good idea, and you can make it happen, make it happen. Just because your kid won't eat broccoli doesn't mean broccoli is a bad food. It just means it might be harder to make people eat it. We can make people have a greater spirit of social responsibility and accountability just like we can make kids eat vegetables. It's a fight, but it's winnable.
Ok this satisfies one of your conditions. Guy on a sex offender registry for something that was technically illegal, sleeping with an underage girl, it's been 30 years however, and they're still happily married with several children.
There exists another case where a judge used discretion to unjustly lighten a sentence.
Again, that is just discretion in sentencing. It's not an example of a law being used outside of its intent.
Here is an example. The RICO act. The purpose of the RICO act was to make it easier to fight against organized crime. Since even before Al Capone, mafias were always finding some way to be criminal without technically breaking any laws. The government kept making new laws to stop them. But the RICO act went too far. It's wording is so broad that it can be used to destroy just about anything, even things completely unrelated to organized crime.
I would like in those cases for the judge to be able to say "Although, the defendant(s) have technically broken this law, they were not engaging in organized crime. The law was intended to stop organized crime, not to stop this other thing that the defendant(s) were doing. Therefore, these charges are dismissed."
There exists another case where a judge used discretion to unjustly lighten a sentence.
Again, that is just discretion in sentencing. It's not an example of a law being used outside of its intent.
You're correct, I posted both of those before seeing your response, they're linked articles. I do believe I've satisfied your conditions with my third attempt. I think I've already spent too much time on this, but I actually kinda care about it. I think more mathematically precise language coupled with greater judicial discretion, could benefit the country, long term.
Listened to this last night -- as a former resident of Washington Heights, don't you go taking shit about the A train while I'm around. The A train rocks.
Comments
Do you have a specific example of the outcome you describe?
They also don't have Florida or Florida Man.
1. Baltic states
2. Italian coastal towns
3. German tourists abroad basically anywhere
4. Hong Kong stories about rampaging mainlanders
5. Russia
6. Russia
7. Russia
Just sayin'
1. Broadly homogeneous culture
2. Better social infrastructure
3. Lower crime as a result of factors well ahead of the court systems' structure
Also, you have no examples.
1) A case where the law called for injustice, but the power of a judge prevented it.
2) A case where the law called for justice and prevented a judge from making an unjust ruling.
3) A case where the law called for justice, but a powerful judge made an unjust ruling.
4) A case where the law called for injustice, and the judge had no power to prevent it even though they wanted to.
He ended up making a new life after he got out - ran a business of some repute and became the mayor of his town. The cop who put him away originally was still trying to bust him years later, kind of went off the deep end
If a tax law fails to tax because there is some trick to avoid it. If the anti-sex offender law punishes people who not sex offenders. When an environmental protection regulation punishes someone for doing something that is actually helpful to the environment. These kinds of things.
If something is a good idea, and you can make it happen, make it happen. Just because your kid won't eat broccoli doesn't mean broccoli is a bad food. It just means it might be harder to make people eat it. We can make people have a greater spirit of social responsibility and accountability just like we can make kids eat vegetables. It's a fight, but it's winnable.
Here is an example. The RICO act. The purpose of the RICO act was to make it easier to fight against organized crime. Since even before Al Capone, mafias were always finding some way to be criminal without technically breaking any laws. The government kept making new laws to stop them. But the RICO act went too far. It's wording is so broad that it can be used to destroy just about anything, even things completely unrelated to organized crime.
This article describes a few such cases.
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=215
I would like in those cases for the judge to be able to say "Although, the defendant(s) have technically broken this law, they were not engaging in organized crime. The law was intended to stop organized crime, not to stop this other thing that the defendant(s) were doing. Therefore, these charges are dismissed."