A constitutional question for lawyers

genna said:
Interesting take since jury trials are specifically invented because judges are historically part of the government and tend to support government/prosecutor position.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should rethink this
 
genna said:
Interesting take since jury trials are specifically invented because judges are historically part of the government and tend to support government/prosecutor position.
Click to expand...
I don't have any proof for this, but the vast majority of judges seem to be former prosecutors which would make me think twice about leaving my fate in the hands of one person. I'm sure defense attorneys and attorneys that deal with non criminal matters also become judges but it certainly seems to be less common.
 
genna said:
Interesting take since jury trials are specifically invented because judges are historically part of the government and tend to support government/prosecutor position.
Click to expand...
Three words: "Separation of powers."

Also known as "Independent judiciary."
 
Palmpilot said:
Three words: "Separation of powers."

Also known as "Independent judiciary."
Click to expand...

The power is maybe separate among the branches of the government, but it still belongs to the government. Jury is not part of government

Also, 1 word: “corruption “. Way easier to corrupt a judge than some 12 random strangers
 
luvflyin said:
And then there's the flip side. Juries convicting the innocent even though they know he didn't do it. It was a way of life for generations, particularly in the South and probably still happens.
Click to expand...

One just has to peruse the news to realize our country is full of hatred and bigotry. Just three weeks ago a young man that went out for a sandwich was attacked on a public street and a noose was placed around his neck by his assailants.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Well, there's at least one piece of good news: the Supreme Court voted UNANIMOUSLY this week to limit a civil forfeiture case.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u...its-states-ability-to-seize-personal-property

Let's hope it's the start of a trend!
Click to expand...

This (until now) legalized theft from private citizens by the government has harmed a huge number of innocent citizens.

This is a typical story:

A 55-year-old Chinese American restaurateur from Georgia was pulled over for minor speeding on Interstate 10 in Alabama and detained for nearly two hours. He was carrying $75,000 raised from relatives to buy a Chinese restaurant in Lake Charles, Louisian. He got back his money 10 months later but only after spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer and losing out on the restaurant deal.

The story linked below details how police agencies hire consultants which specialize in training the agencies how to maximize the seizures and forfeitures from people traveling through their jurisdictions.

It's outrageous this legalized theivery has been allowed to exist for decades.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/clas...-bc-forfeiture-1-repeat06-20140906-story.html
 
genna said:
The power is maybe separate among the branches of the government, but it still belongs to the government. Jury is not part of government
Click to expand...

The government is not a monolith.

Also, 1 word: “corruption “. Way easier to corrupt a judge than some 12 random strangers
Click to expand...
That's a bold assumption. Trying to corrupt either sounds like a very risky strategy, but trying to corrupt a judge would probably be the quickest ticket to the slammer.

I don't have an opinion on which is better for any given defendant, by the way.
 
Palmpilot said:
The government is not a monolith.


That's a bold assumption. Trying to corrupt either sounds like a very risky strategy, but trying to corrupt a judge would probably be the quickest ticket to the slammer.

I don't have an opinion on which is better for any given defendant, by the way.
Click to expand...

I think you are speaking in specifics. I e specific criminal case. In that case you are correct.

I’m speaking in general. Judges are part of governments. When you go to a circuit court, you go to a seat of the government and you feel that way. Most (around the world) are appointed, but even if elected, it’s not like politicians. They come from government usually and answer to government usually. They hang out with politicians and are often friends with them. They are people. They are far more likely to defer to a prosecutor they have/had occasional drinks with than some random Joe Shmoe accused of selling dope. Or worse yet, accused of plotting against said government. Than is a form of corruption (I didn’t mean bribe) of fairness.

It’s not to say that juries are perfect. They can be easily manipulated and often don’t understand how to process what they hear or how to determine guilt.

But all you have to do is look through history around the world to see that corrupted judges are one of the first reasons cited in causes of many revolutions
 
Last edited:
Soviet Union had a tribunal type system. You had 3 judges and no jury. You did not want to be in front of them for anything political
 
genna said:
I think you are speaking in specifics. I e specific criminal case. In that case you are correct.

I’m speaking in general. Judges are part of governments. When you go to a circuit court, you go to a seat of the government and you feel that way. Most (around the world) are appointed, but even if elected, it’s not like politicians. They come from government usually and answer to government usually. They hang out with politicians and are often friends with them. They are people. They are far more likely to defer to a prosecutor they have/had occasional drinks with than some random Joe Shmoe accused of selling dope. Or worse yet, accused of plotting against said government. Than is a form of corruption (I didn’t mean bribe) of fairness.

It’s not to say that juries are perfect. They can be easily manipulated and often don’t understand how to process what they hear or how to determine guilt.

But all you have to do is look through history around the world to see that corrupted judges are one of the first reasons cited in causes of many revolutions
Click to expand...
No, I'm speaking in general. I think that U.S. judges in general have high integrity. Of course, there are always exceptions, but I don't think that corruption is rampant in the U.S. judicial system. If one does happen to come before one of the exceptions, hopefully, one's attorney will know this.
 
Palmpilot said:
No, I'm speaking in general. I think that U.S. judges in general have high integrity. Of course, there are always exceptions, but I don't think that corruption is rampant in the U.S. judicial system. If one does happen to come before one of the exceptions, hopefully, one's attorney will know this.
Click to expand...

Ok. I agree that corruption is not as prevalent in US system. My point is that it’s not prevalent BECAUSE it’s a jury system. At least in large part


Also, most cases do not go to trial anyway. Which is a bigger problem (and largely caused by jury system)
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Well, there's at least one piece of good news: the Supreme Court voted UNANIMOUSLY this week to limit a civil forfeiture case.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u...its-states-ability-to-seize-personal-property

Let's hope it's the start of a trend!
Click to expand...

NAL, not even an internet lawyer (NEAIL?):

I've been reading a little about that decision. The court was unanimous in ruling that the 8th amendment, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.", applies to States and not only the Federal government. Until the other day, that question hadn't had a clear answer. Indiana seized a $40k car from a guy charged in a drug deal that had a max fine of $10k. The lower courts in Indiana overturned that seizure saying it violated the 8th amendment. The Indiana Supreme Court said there was never a decision that clearly said the 8th amendment applies to the State and overruled the lower courts and setting up a USSC final decision.

The USSC ruling doesn't say States can't use civil forfeiture, it says it can't be excessive.

From what I've read, the ruling itself isn't as interesting as the opinions. It was 9-0 and seems like a slam dunk, but there were 2 different opinions. 8 of the Justices said the 14 amendment "Due Process" clause is what makes the 8th amendment apply: "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." They used that to say the State wasn't "fair".

Justice Thomas disagreed, and said it wasn't the "Due Process" clause that should have applied, it was the "Privileges and Immunities" clause: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" He was saying that as citizens, we are entitled to certain privileges and immunities, such as what is granted in the 8th amendment. He disagreed with the other 8 (although Justice Gorsuch did agree with Thomas, Gorsuch joined the rest in their opinion.) He said the other 8 were turning this case into a "procedural" case, and not a "rights" case.

It may seem like 2 different ways of coming to the same conclusion, but there are a lot of subtleties there, and some of them might have an effect on later decisions.
 
Palmpilot said:
The government is not a monolith.


That's a bold assumption. Trying to corrupt either sounds like a very risky strategy, but trying to corrupt a judge would probably be the quickest ticket to the slammer.

I don't have an opinion on which is better for any given defendant, by the way.
Click to expand...
And you don't have to corrupt 12 just 1 in most cases
 
James331 said:
Like all those crackpot antigovernment types who were against the Jim Crow laws, internment camps, tyrannical English rule, and liked having tin foil hat stuff like a “bill of rights”, and that’s just this country.
Click to expand...

I rest my case.
 
Kansas Flyer said:
I don't have any proof for this, but the vast majority of judges seem to be former prosecutors which would make me think twice about leaving my fate in the hands of one person. I'm sure defense attorneys and attorneys that deal with non criminal matters also become judges but it certainly seems to be less common.
Click to expand...

Not in my area. Numerous former public defenders/attorneys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top