[preptarra]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Che pretty much nailed it, but in addition to what he said, who's going to administer the trial without judges? That's fair. I think we need some sort of referee to moderate the trial, but that person should not be on some pedestal wearing robes and being called "Your honor." There's absolutely no reason why we should be forced to treat a government official like they're our noble lord. I don't have to call a firefighter "Your honor," and they're a good deal more useful to society than some corrupt judge.

The job still needs to be done, and a judge by another name is no different. Sentencing is already in the hands of the elected legislatures (maximums, mandatory minimums, three strikes and you're out laws, etc.), subject of course to applicable constitutional restrictions. Judges can only exercise what discretion the legislature allows them. The penalties described by legislatures are out of control. Most laws are so broadly defined and severely punished that the courts are forced to be "merciful" rather than fair. Why? So that you're forced to humiliate yourself before a judge, lest they throw the book at you.

Look at speed limits. Nobody obeys them. Most cops won't pull you over unless you're going at least ten above. So it's less of a limit than a suggestion. And that gives cops who want to be dicks the power to harass just about anybody.

What's your vision for civil courts? Despite Swift's best wishes, short statutes don't stop people from committing torts or keep contract disputes from arising. I've never been in a civil case, so I'll withdraw criticism of the specifics until I know more. I do think that there are obvious abuses that exist (e.g. McDonalds' hot coffee case), but juries seem to be part of the problem there too, rather than a solution.

In any event, reform is pretty clearly needed, and opposed most strenuously by the trial lawyers who profit the most from the current system.