The criminal justice system works great, if by "working great" you mean "gets convictions, warranted or not." Which, it seems, a lot of folks like, because convictions draw applause and cheers and manly displays of triumphalism and acquittals draw catcalls and condemnations of "loop-holes" and "soft-on-crime judges."
Embedded Link
Evidently Incompetent Or Worse
When the Duke lacrosse case was at high tide, I got in a little trouble when I opined somewhere that egregious hack Mike Nifong, the prosecutor who brought the charges, was merely doing what we tacitly admit through our love for get-tough, law-and-or…
44 view(s)
And this is great because our prisons have all those empty cells going to waste and there is so much excess money that we couldn't get rid of if we didn't prisoners to spend it on. It's win-win!
+Scott Randel Well, if you privatize your prison complex, then someone's definitely making money from it — so it's win-win-WIN!
It's especially fun during local judicial elections, in which the winning candidate has to craft a message along the lines of "I believe in the death penalty and will personally slaughter any accused criminal that sets foot in my courtroom, ensuring that copious amounts of blood and gore splatter all over the place. Jaywalkers – you have been warned!"
I've been fortunate enough to live in states where judicial elections are non-partisan and, generally, non-contentious. Judicial election politics strike me as an insanely bad idea except in the most egregious circumstances.
I’m glad we don’t vote in our judiciary or prosecutors. The thought of ‘race to the bottom’ on who can be the toughest, and hang the facts is frightening. Making a decision with an eye on not what is right but what is popular isn’t a justice system.
How are judges ‘soft’ on aquittal. Surely it is the jury that aquits.
@LH — Not all trials are by jury. Further, a judge can make determinations as to what evidence is admissible, what objections are sustained, and what instructions are given to the jury. Further, while in jury trials guilt is determined by the jury, the judge is usually responsible for the actual sentencing (within the bounds of whatever sentencing guidelines are in play). So, yes, there are plenty of opportunities for judicial bias and bloodthirstiness / bleedingheartedness to come into play.