The job description of US criminal persecutors is wrong. People there should work into fixing it.

It's not the lawyers but the KPAs. If a prosecutor's promotion is judged based on the number of successful prosecutions, then there's every incentive to prosecute and zero incentive to dismiss charges.

Fixing the system requires changing the incentives. Individuals would adjust accordingly.

Edit: It won't get fixed because ultimately the metrics trickle up to Joe Public, who is notoriously tough on crime. Lawyers had to fight popular sentiment to get rid of the death penalty in most states. Even today, between death and life imprisonment, the former is preferred by the general public.

▲

onefiftymike 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The prosecutor where I grew up had the cops mad at him too because he would only prosecute if it was a slam dunk win. He didn't want to risk not getting a conviction so many crimes had no action if they didn't have spotless evidence. So somewhat a win, but still not good that known criminals are out and about because the prosecutor didn't want to risk a not-guilty verdict.

The whole system is pretty broken.

▲

underlipton 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Even today, between death and life imprisonment, the former is preferred by the general public.

Source?

▲

tialaramex 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, that seems dubious to me. Among the public here in Britain it's somewhat popular but not a majority, with far lower popularity among people who understand how the sausage is made. Here's somebody who has put quite a lot of thought into this explaining why it's a bad idea from a purely practical standpoint: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DrsVhzbLzU

The woman defending the Death Penalty in that clip is Priti Patel, a Tory MP who was until recently in their Shadow Cabinet. You'd hope she can do better, but judging from her subsequent comments she still doesn't get it.

Now, in the UK most people with a life sentence will (after quite some time) be eligible for parole. Historically it was possible for politicians to block this, but of course the consequence is that if a particularly notorious criminal is scheduled to be paroled, politicians are under pressure to prevent that, while a criminal who didn't attract much public interest leaves on schedule - that's manifestly unfair and a European court told the Brits they can't do that, so eventually the UK's Supreme Court decided there needed to a specific rule, identify a category of people who won't be paroled, and the category they decided on was people who have been convicted of at least two separately conceived murders.

Several European countries have no life sentences. Breivik for example got 21 years, and since he's still an avowed Nazi who wants to kill more people, and will likely still be an avowed Nazi when his sentence ends, they will just hold him until he stops being a Nazi or he dies. No additional sentence needed.

[Edited: Priti left her Shadow role a few weeks ago]

▲

crote 4 hours ago | parent [-]

What's the motivation for keeping Breivik locked up? I have trouble believing it is for his political views, the human rights courts don't tend to like that sort of thing.

Is it not just a case of "murderous lunatic remains locked in asylum after criminal sentence until cured" - which can very well be until his death?

	▲	tialaramex 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"I want to kill people" isn't a "political view" in the sense you seem to imagine. Maybe I should have emphasised the bit where he wants to kill people more than the fact he's a Nazi? But the two are intertwined. He wants to kill people because he's a Nazi, these are not unrelated in his mind. I'm sure in his mind it makes sense. But everybody else disagrees and considers that, as you said, the murderous lunatic can't be released.

▲

awesome_dude 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> ultimately the metrics trickle up to Joe Public, who is notoriously tough on crime

This behaviour, by Joe Public, is a serious problem, in that it's an emotional response, not a logical one, and absolutely never based on informed debate

	▲	pstuart 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Joe Sixpack is not a deep thinker. He cares about getting his immediate needs met. He wants to be entertained without having to be forced to think. He wants to see people that he's been conditioned to hate be punished. He wants people he can look down on so he doesn't feel like he's at the bottom of the pile.

▲

voakbasda 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It will not be fixed. The lawyers have control of our legal system. They are the politicians and judges. The system is theirs; if we want to change the status quo, it will take nothing less than a bloody revolution.

▲

maerF0x0 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Or a flood of new lawyers with a basis of Beneficence and ethics, and a knowing willingness to act against maximal short-term self interest. (Though still self profitable, just not maximally)

▲

anonymous908213 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The old lawyers determine who gets to become a new lawyer.

	▲	HPsquared 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Medieval guild mechanics. Same with doctors.
	▲	maerF0x0 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I didnt know this. I thought it was just an exam.

▲

glitchc 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That may be just as likely as having a high net worth individual donate their entire fortune to you gratis.

As in, just as unlikely.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

consensus1 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Also most of the legislators

▲

awesome_dude 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Politicians being trained lawyers is a good thing - they (supposedly) know the nightmare that is the legal system

To put it into a software developers context - which hopefully makes it easier to understand for some.

The law is legacy code that stretches back a few centuries (literally) that has been written by many many people with little in common, and has active users who must be consulted upon change.

▲

Razengan 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Lawyers are the first thing AI should drive out of business.

	▲	valleyer 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"First thing we do, let's [automate] all the lawyers."