“Wow, that was sure a long slow legal process we just went through to get X punished for Y. Surely many such cases are never punished, because this process is just too hard.” “I’ve heard that in some places it is much simpler and faster. If you have a complaint, you call over the local police officer, and he or she soon looks into it, and then makes a decision, usually that day. Fast and easy, no need for lawyers, courts, etc. Doesn’t that sound better?”
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.
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)
It is very difficult to make an appropriate ruling in law, it takes a lot training and a lot of skill. Law school and years as a lawyer both provide training and provide evidence of skill(there may be law graduates suitable to be judges, but it's difficult to differentiate them from unsuitable to be judges.)
Because the training and skill required is so high, we do not have many people who are suitable, so we must make do with few judges because there are only a few suitable to be judges.
The dialog makes a good case for police vs. judges. I see this as only the secondary question, though; more important is discretion vs. rules. Obviously, that is a continuum, but I think we need to first decide what balance we would like there and then who determine who is likely to carry it out most efficiently and fairly.
Not mentioned is the possibility to appeal from police to judges.
And, per @mrshl:disqus , police already do a lot of judging. I don't know of much research on how well they do it, nor has there been much explicit attempt to find mechanisms to help them do it better.
Having been both victim and (more often) beneficiary of police judgement, my anecdotal experience is that there's a lot of prejudice and decision making based on first impressions - your outcome is likely to be heavily influenced by the way you dress and how respectful you are to police.
Obviously (to me), any such police-based judgement system needs to be limited to certain types of cases and a limited range of punishments.
My understanding is that with police, quantity has a quality all its own. You want a large number of police on the street to deter crime. At such large numbers, it's hard to demand a really high level of quality from each cop. Also, because the purpose of police is to prevent crime rather than to get convictions for crime, they are less concerned with convictions than prosecutors. As Mark Kleiman has pointed out, even spending a night in jail is actually a sufficient deterrent for hardened meth-addicted burglars to get clean, if the punishment is swift and certain. So large numbers of police help to ensure the high probability of even a small amount of jail time for breaking the law, which is actually the most important thing for suppressing crime (and when innocent people are jailed, the relative mildness of the "punishment" makes it acceptable). The power to sentence people to years in jail isn't really necessary for them.
For all practical purposes, the police have the power of judges now. We use judges for the oversight. Which works not that well, it turns out, because judges have mostly neutered the oversight powers they have.
Most criminal cases plead out well before trial. Right now, if the cops say you did something, for most folks it matters not that much whether they did it or not. They will pay an enormous penalty simply for being accused. Even if they are found not guilty at some distant point in time.
People of color face disproportionate injustice at the hands of police. And that's WITH well-established procedures where cops police other cops. Because, it turns out, cops either don't believe or don't care about their systemic racism and in any case don't like policing themselves. Even if they hail from other jurisdictions.
The best thing we can do is admit that justice is corrupt among both the police and the judges. Then we could try to make it hurt less by putting many fewer people in jail. That way an arbitrary and capricious cop could cost you a paycheck, but maybe not ruin your life.
What about competition among the police/judges? Say someone steals my property. I go to one justice system A (maybe preselected), and the person who stole from me goes to another one, B. If A and B both are honest, then I win. If B is dishonest (caters to criminals), seems like an unstable equilibrium. Criminals will go to them when they are in the wrong, but not when they are the ones wronged.
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.
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)
At the very least a good start would be multiplying the number of judges and expanding the ability to get faster results via arbitration.
Isn't this already largely the case via pre-trial intervention and plea bargains?
That depends on how complex we want the law to be. In most legal systems in history, most people didn't use lawyers.
It is very difficult to make an appropriate ruling in law, it takes a lot training and a lot of skill. Law school and years as a lawyer both provide training and provide evidence of skill(there may be law graduates suitable to be judges, but it's difficult to differentiate them from unsuitable to be judges.)
Because the training and skill required is so high, we do not have many people who are suitable, so we must make do with few judges because there are only a few suitable to be judges.
There is also simple vs complex rules. Police can enforce simple rules, but for complex ones you need judges.
The dialog makes a good case for police vs. judges. I see this as only the secondary question, though; more important is discretion vs. rules. Obviously, that is a continuum, but I think we need to first decide what balance we would like there and then who determine who is likely to carry it out most efficiently and fairly.
Not mentioned is the possibility to appeal from police to judges.
And, per @mrshl:disqus , police already do a lot of judging. I don't know of much research on how well they do it, nor has there been much explicit attempt to find mechanisms to help them do it better.
Having been both victim and (more often) beneficiary of police judgement, my anecdotal experience is that there's a lot of prejudice and decision making based on first impressions - your outcome is likely to be heavily influenced by the way you dress and how respectful you are to police.
Obviously (to me), any such police-based judgement system needs to be limited to certain types of cases and a limited range of punishments.
Robin has actually proposed entirely relying on bounties rather than police to ensure such competition:
http://www.overcomingbias.c...
My understanding is that with police, quantity has a quality all its own. You want a large number of police on the street to deter crime. At such large numbers, it's hard to demand a really high level of quality from each cop. Also, because the purpose of police is to prevent crime rather than to get convictions for crime, they are less concerned with convictions than prosecutors. As Mark Kleiman has pointed out, even spending a night in jail is actually a sufficient deterrent for hardened meth-addicted burglars to get clean, if the punishment is swift and certain. So large numbers of police help to ensure the high probability of even a small amount of jail time for breaking the law, which is actually the most important thing for suppressing crime (and when innocent people are jailed, the relative mildness of the "punishment" makes it acceptable). The power to sentence people to years in jail isn't really necessary for them.
For all practical purposes, the police have the power of judges now. We use judges for the oversight. Which works not that well, it turns out, because judges have mostly neutered the oversight powers they have.
Most criminal cases plead out well before trial. Right now, if the cops say you did something, for most folks it matters not that much whether they did it or not. They will pay an enormous penalty simply for being accused. Even if they are found not guilty at some distant point in time.
People of color face disproportionate injustice at the hands of police. And that's WITH well-established procedures where cops police other cops. Because, it turns out, cops either don't believe or don't care about their systemic racism and in any case don't like policing themselves. Even if they hail from other jurisdictions.
The best thing we can do is admit that justice is corrupt among both the police and the judges. Then we could try to make it hurt less by putting many fewer people in jail. That way an arbitrary and capricious cop could cost you a paycheck, but maybe not ruin your life.
What about competition among the police/judges? Say someone steals my property. I go to one justice system A (maybe preselected), and the person who stole from me goes to another one, B. If A and B both are honest, then I win. If B is dishonest (caters to criminals), seems like an unstable equilibrium. Criminals will go to them when they are in the wrong, but not when they are the ones wronged.