Discussion about this post

User's avatar
citizen15's avatar

The claim that relying on judges instead of police reduces chance of corruption is not about status, education, using big words, etc. It's about separation of powers. Police already perform police functions: gathering evidence, arresting suspects, etc. They are part of the prosecution team. We don't want to allow police to additionally determine guilt for the same reason that we don't allow prosecutors to do it, even though prosecutors often have similar education, status, knowledge, etc. as judges. It's also the same reason that we don't allow defense attorneys, or even the defendant himself, to determine guilt or innocence.

We could allow people who are currently police officers to become judges, but then we would need different people to do police work.

Expand full comment
Overcoming Bias Commenter's avatar

The current system's justifications are more about processes than people. I'd wager most defenders of the status quo would prefer a system where police officers preside over formal rules-based trials to one where prestigious judges ride along with police patrols and make decisions on the spot.

The most important person-based argument is that police officers' day-to-day work inclines them to see suspects as their enemies.

(Also, juries exist precisely as a check on judges' power)

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts