One of the primary failures, in my opinion, of the American justice system is that it takes an eternity to do ANYTHING. And because it takes a long time it also is expensive.
If every decision could be reached in a week we’d see an enormous drop in bad behavior, because humans are conditioned to respond to short term stimuli more than long term ones. Effectively any punishment that comes years after the action isn’t a disincentive in the human psyche.
Not exactly unique to the US justice system, it’s a pretty common issue in western democracies.
You’re very right that this is really bad psychologically and also stupidly expensive, but it’s a hard issue because you also need to be diligent to avoid wrongful convictions, which are also really bad psychologically (real perpetrators get off free, and law-abiding people lose faith in the system even more).
I think there could be a better balance between taking time to get all the facts straight and taking immediate action to halt ongoing harm. The fact that the government can basically out sprint legal consequences because we have very few mechanisms to stop them in the moment is a problem.
We can stop a shooter or other violent criminal in the moment, but a more nebulous crime, like what most powerful and rich people commit is almost always left unchecked until long after it’s already over and done with.
It’s just another aspect of the class war really. The system handles poor criminals really well and is nearly useless in holding the rich accountable or stopping their crime sprees.
Something we already do for poor people. Violent criminals get held all the time and an arrested criminal waiting trial going out and committing even more crimes would result in jail without a bond option or one so high for that individual they’d never afford it.
If we applied the same logic to the rich, they’d be arrested, held for awhile, maybe released on bond depending on circumstances (which would probably be in the hundreds of millions or even billions to be equivalently painful to them). Then if they went out and did the same crimes again, they’d be locked up pending their trial, possibly with a new bond that’s set at something totally absurd like 50 trillion dollars.
It is strictly a matter of the courts not being expanded and growing at the same rate as the rest of society. The only reason it takes so long to get your case through the court system is not because of technical complexity but because the courts are not equipped to deal with the volume of cases they need to process. We need more courts, more prosecutors, judges, lawyers, and clerks- not more cops.
That’s by design, too. Keep the courts understaffed and backlogged, hike up sentences to comical levels (one hundred consecutive lifetimes!), threaten with always seeking max penalties, and rely on plea deals, effectively bypassing any semblance of actual judicial process for civilians- unless you have money and can afford lawyers to force the issue of course.
We would do democracy a big service defunding the police and funding the courts with that money instead.
While it does suck that courts take a long time, I feel like you’re overemphasizing the “deterrent” effect of criminal punishment. While fear of repercussions is a non-zero factor in whether a person commits a crime, it isn’t the ONLY factor, and I’d argue that for most people, it isn’t even the biggest one.
Punishing people more quickly might help some surface level things, but really we should be looking at why people are motivated to commit crimes (at all levels).
my family has worked in or adjacent to the legal field forever. reaching a settlement in a month is considered a miracle of a success. a year is normal. when do you need the relief? immediately. very few people have financial reserves or social networks they can rely on that will let them take the kind of hits that let you wait for legal relief. sure, you get a few thousand or million or whatever, but you were down at least that much in real damages or injuries or suffering or &c. for years or decades, since how long their insurance company wants to appeal depends on how much you were awarded. yaaaay.
You could start chopping hands, sharia style. The effect is immediate, memorable and serves as a deterrent to anyone who might consider breaking the law.
If you’ve been following LegalEagle, you’ll know that ICE is breaking laws faster than anyone can prosecute.
One of the primary failures, in my opinion, of the American justice system is that it takes an eternity to do ANYTHING. And because it takes a long time it also is expensive.
If every decision could be reached in a week we’d see an enormous drop in bad behavior, because humans are conditioned to respond to short term stimuli more than long term ones. Effectively any punishment that comes years after the action isn’t a disincentive in the human psyche.
Not exactly unique to the US justice system, it’s a pretty common issue in western democracies.
You’re very right that this is really bad psychologically and also stupidly expensive, but it’s a hard issue because you also need to be diligent to avoid wrongful convictions, which are also really bad psychologically (real perpetrators get off free, and law-abiding people lose faith in the system even more).
I think there could be a better balance between taking time to get all the facts straight and taking immediate action to halt ongoing harm. The fact that the government can basically out sprint legal consequences because we have very few mechanisms to stop them in the moment is a problem.
We can stop a shooter or other violent criminal in the moment, but a more nebulous crime, like what most powerful and rich people commit is almost always left unchecked until long after it’s already over and done with.
It’s just another aspect of the class war really. The system handles poor criminals really well and is nearly useless in holding the rich accountable or stopping their crime sprees.
i mean, while you take the time to get all the facts straight you potentially imprison the innocent. there’s layers to this onion
Something we already do for poor people. Violent criminals get held all the time and an arrested criminal waiting trial going out and committing even more crimes would result in jail without a bond option or one so high for that individual they’d never afford it.
If we applied the same logic to the rich, they’d be arrested, held for awhile, maybe released on bond depending on circumstances (which would probably be in the hundreds of millions or even billions to be equivalently painful to them). Then if they went out and did the same crimes again, they’d be locked up pending their trial, possibly with a new bond that’s set at something totally absurd like 50 trillion dollars.
It is strictly a matter of the courts not being expanded and growing at the same rate as the rest of society. The only reason it takes so long to get your case through the court system is not because of technical complexity but because the courts are not equipped to deal with the volume of cases they need to process. We need more courts, more prosecutors, judges, lawyers, and clerks- not more cops.
Yeah but those fields take training 🙃
That’s by design, too. Keep the courts understaffed and backlogged, hike up sentences to comical levels (one hundred consecutive lifetimes!), threaten with always seeking max penalties, and rely on plea deals, effectively bypassing any semblance of actual judicial process for civilians- unless you have money and can afford lawyers to force the issue of course.
We would do democracy a big service defunding the police and funding the courts with that money instead.
While it does suck that courts take a long time, I feel like you’re overemphasizing the “deterrent” effect of criminal punishment. While fear of repercussions is a non-zero factor in whether a person commits a crime, it isn’t the ONLY factor, and I’d argue that for most people, it isn’t even the biggest one.
Punishing people more quickly might help some surface level things, but really we should be looking at why people are motivated to commit crimes (at all levels).
Oh for sure, I’m just saying that human psychology is strongly biased by recency.
my family has worked in or adjacent to the legal field forever. reaching a settlement in a month is considered a miracle of a success. a year is normal. when do you need the relief? immediately. very few people have financial reserves or social networks they can rely on that will let them take the kind of hits that let you wait for legal relief. sure, you get a few thousand or million or whatever, but you were down at least that much in real damages or injuries or suffering or &c. for years or decades, since how long their insurance company wants to appeal depends on how much you were awarded. yaaaay.
I don’t know of any system that can well handle it’s leaders acting in bad faith.
You could start chopping hands, sharia style. The effect is immediate, memorable and serves as a deterrent to anyone who might consider breaking the law.
And what do you do if it turns out they were innocent? Whoops!
well it stops them from stealing two more times
Evidence comes first, obviously. Or were you planning to do it Wild West style instead?