• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How should our justice system be judged?

How should our justice system be judged?

  • Arrests?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Conviction rates?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Crime rate increase/decrease?

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • Some combination of 1, 2, and 3? (Please explain)

    Votes: 6 31.6%

  • Other. (Please explain)

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • Total voters
    19
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
How should our justice system be judged?

When judging/evaluating the effectiveness of our justice system, what standards should we be using to make relevant and accurate conclusions?

1) Arrests?
2) Conviction rates?
3) Crime rate increase/decrease?
4) Some combination of 1, 2, and 3? (Please explain)
5) Other. (Please explain)

This question includes both police and DAs/prosecutors, as they are all under the "justice system" umbrella.
 
radcen said:
How should our justice system be judged?

When judging/evaluating the effectiveness of our justice system, what standards should we be using to make relevant and accurate conclusions?

1) Arrests?
2) Conviction rates?
3) Crime rate increase/decrease?
4) Some combination of 1, 2, and 3? (Please explain)
5) Other. (Please explain)

This question includes both police and DAs/prosecutors, as they are all under the "justice system" umbrella.
Click to expand...

Great in theory, so-so in practice.

You left out recidivism.
 
Every system should be judged by results.
 
The degree to which it preserves the rights of all citizens and administers justice to the accused. For example, false conviction and false acquittal rates must be minimized, in that order.
 
radcen said:
How should our justice system be judged?

When judging/evaluating the effectiveness of our justice system, what standards should we be using to make relevant and accurate conclusions?

1) Arrests?
2) Conviction rates?
3) Crime rate increase/decrease?
4) Some combination of 1, 2, and 3? (Please explain)
5) Other. (Please explain)

This question includes both police and DAs/prosecutors, as they are all under the "justice system" umbrella.
Click to expand...

I think that more need to be included to judge justice. For instance the relation between the number of arrests to false arrests, convictions to false convictions, reliability of prosecution and consistency of punishment.... and many other things are important.
 
I tend to believe the results are the meat.
If you do a result search of all the major cities in the U.S. as an example. Then find the ones with the lowest crime rate. Then examine the methods, population, demographics, complaints and corruption, and probably a sh!t ton more data- you can cross reference with the cities that have higher rates and find out what the qualifiers might be.
You can then find out if there are methods/approaches being done by the lower crime rate city not being done with the higher crime rate city (with understanding that things do not work equally across the board and what might work in one area doesn't necessarily in another).

It is probably more complicated than that but that seems a fairly logical approach.
 
radcen said:
How should our justice system be judged?

When judging/evaluating the effectiveness of our justice system, what standards should we be using to make relevant and accurate conclusions?

1) Arrests?
2) Conviction rates?
3) Crime rate increase/decrease?
4) Some combination of 1, 2, and 3? (Please explain)
5) Other. (Please explain)

This question includes both police and DAs/prosecutors, as they are all under the "justice system" umbrella.
Click to expand...

None of the above!
It should be judged on its' ability to dispense JUSTICE. Sorely lacking, I might add.
 
radcen said:
How should our justice system be judged?

When judging/evaluating the effectiveness of our justice system, what standards should we be using to make relevant and accurate conclusions?

1) Arrests?
2) Conviction rates?
3) Crime rate increase/decrease?
4) Some combination of 1, 2, and 3? (Please explain)
5) Other. (Please explain)

This question includes both police and DAs/prosecutors, as they are all under the "justice system" umbrella.
Click to expand...

Generally a little bit of #2 and a little bit of #3 along with cost to the public and intrusion on individual liberty.

You can easily get a 100% conviction rate if you choose to either only prosecute the most heinous of crimes or just steamroll everybody. You can decrease crime rates by making various crimes legal. If, for example, you stop busting people for selling crack then your drug crime rate will plummet.

The true effectiveness of the justice system is whether it allows for a generally free and safe society while supporting reasonable standards for personal conduct.
 
Ntharotep said:
I tend to believe the results are the meat.
If you do a result search of all the major cities in the U.S. as an example. Then find the ones with the lowest crime rate. Then examine the methods, population, demographics, complaints and corruption, and probably a sh!t ton more data- you can cross reference with the cities that have higher rates and find out what the qualifiers might be.
You can then find out if there are methods/approaches being done by the lower crime rate city not being done with the higher crime rate city (with understanding that things do not work equally across the board and what might work in one area doesn't necessarily in another).

It is probably more complicated than that but that seems a fairly logical approach.
Click to expand...

By that type of measure, the first thing we would get rid of are Police Guns. No Police Guns in Great Britain and much lower crime statistics, eh?
 
I voted other, because I believe Justice is based on Consistency in Application, both in the courts and on the streets, anything else should not be acceptable and in need of reform.
As for the US system of Justice, we still have a lot of room for improvement.
 
DaveFagan said:
By that type of measure, the first thing we would get rid of are Police Guns. No Police Guns in Great Britain and much lower crime statistics, eh?
Click to expand...

You serious?
 
DaveFagan said:
By that type of measure, the first thing we would get rid of are Police Guns. No Police Guns in Great Britain and much lower crime statistics, eh?
Click to expand...
I did say U.S. cities. As far as I know, no U.S. city has a ban on police firearms that has proven to reduce its crime rate.
I am not into trying to lump the world into one, single catch-all culture at all.
 
radcen said:
How should our justice system be judged?

When judging/evaluating the effectiveness of our justice system, what standards should we be using to make relevant and accurate conclusions?

1) Arrests?
2) Conviction rates?
3) Crime rate increase/decrease?
4) Some combination of 1, 2, and 3? (Please explain)
5) Other. (Please explain)

This question includes both police and DAs/prosecutors, as they are all under the "justice system" umbrella.
Click to expand...

I feel 1 & 2 are terrible means in which to determine the success of our justice system and are part of our problem. Setting the standard of success on arrests and conviction numbers is only asking for corruption and the blurring of lines in the attempt to pad the numbers. I personally feel we already allow way to much circumstantial and iffy evidence as proof when determining ones guilt and I believe that when convicting a person there should never be any doubt whatsoever. To me it seems that proving ones guilt has really come down to a matter of swaying opinions and a lot less about what the evidence proves. I know I would never feel confident in having my life in the hands of a jury regardless of how innocent I might be.

I think the number of crimes being committed and the severity of those crimes would be the best measure on the effectiveness of our judicial and social system.
 
Casper said:
You serious?
Click to expand...

I think that this gentleman is ..Or explain the lower crime rate in England .
I support the notion of learning from the more advanced nations on this planet ...that our way of doing things MAY NOT be best .
Last I checked , the "justice system" and our education system are poles apart ..and, IMO, potential criminals either live or die in our schools.. Further , I think that very few of us are qualified to "judge" our system .
 
earthworm said:
I think that this gentleman is ..Or explain the lower crime rate in England .
I support the notion of learning from the more advanced nations on this planet ...that our way of doing things MAY NOT be best .
Last I checked , the "justice system" and our education system are poles apart ..and, IMO, potential criminals either live or die in our schools.. Further , I think that very few of us are qualified to "judge" our system .
Click to expand...
Societies differ, one cannot point to one and say this will work there, people have different cultures and societies have different norms. Cookie Cutter solutions for all are always a disaster, it is why England had so hard a time reforming their Colonies around the world into their own image, what works and is acceptable for a Brit is often no acceptable for others, things such as Freedoms.
 
Casper said:
I voted other, because I believe Justice is based on Consistency in Application, both in the courts and on the streets, anything else should not be acceptable and in need of reform.
As for the US system of Justice, we still have a lot of room for improvement.
Click to expand...

Consistently can be consistently bad or corrupt, too.
 
Baralis said:
I feel 1 & 2 are terrible means in which to determine the success of our justice system and are part of our problem. Setting the standard of success on arrests and conviction numbers is only asking for corruption and the blurring of lines in the attempt to pad the numbers. I personally feel we already allow way to much circumstantial and iffy evidence as proof when determining ones guilt and I believe that when convicting a person there should never be any doubt whatsoever. To me it seems that proving ones guilt has really come down to a matter of swaying opinions and a lot less about what the evidence proves. I know I would never feel confident in having my life in the hands of a jury regardless of how innocent I might be.

I think the number of crimes being committed and the severity of those crimes would be the best measure on the effectiveness of our judicial and social system.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you say here, but especially the part in red. Unfortunately, those two items seem to be what works for getting LE officers promotions and getting people elected as DAs. It's akin to saying we don't like negative political ads, but reality is politicians use them because they work. Same here. LE/prosecutors play up arrest/conviction numbers because they work.
 
Fledermaus said:
Crime rate can remain low with a high recidivism rate.
Click to expand...

But having only one criminal in the whole country who keeps going back her criminal ways is a 100% recidivism rate, yet crime is virtually non-existent or at the other extreme, you have 300,000,000 criminals and 1,000,000 keep going back to their criminal ways, gives you a recidivism rate of .033% (I think that's the right # of decimals).
 
# of Convictions per criminal act and # of criminal acts. The first number should be pushing 100%, while the second number should be declining.
 
faithful_servant said:
But having only one criminal in the whole country who keeps going back her criminal ways is a 100% recidivism rate, yet crime is virtually non-existent or at the other extreme, you have 300,000,000 criminals and 1,000,000 keep going back to their criminal ways, gives you a recidivism rate of .033% (I think that's the right # of decimals).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

A high recidivism rate shows that perhaps what we are doing to try to rehabilitate the convicted is not working or that the deterrence Isnt working.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom