On the other hand, other parts of the legal system must be made aware of where prosecutors stand in legal cases. The jury, judge, and defence have as much responsibility in making sure that justice is genuinely served. They should all exemplary perform – and responsibly – their own roles to maintain balance within the legal system.

The rich get a tax subsidy they absolutely have no need of, and school budgets for everyone else fall sharply.

Please come up with something to support your anecdotal evidence supporting your assertions that national parity is anything more than a bureaucratic boondoggle. Is there a single federal program that lowers costs on anything? makes anything more efficient? Washington DC public school system spends over $20,000 per pupil, yet not a single politician I can find enrolls their kids in these schools. It’s comical that the Obama’s (and many of these politicians) look to the private sector when it comes to educating their kids…

There are ways to increase spending on education that I think would be much more effective- end the drug war and reduce the incarceration rate. The savings could be placed into vouchers and pumped into existing schools. Give people a choice. Address poverty by breaking monopolies that horrible school districts have- people could move into more affordable areas and not be afraid of the schools.

What is so ‘unsophisticated’ about this?

Because people allow themselves to be taxed more freely when they think that the money will stay in their neighborhood. I think the ppl in the burbs would rather allow the public schools in the burbs to decline in quality than raise the quality of the inner city schools that their families white flighted away from a generation or two back.

YMMV.

Although I think public education is one of the better things for government to waste money on (as wasting my tax money goes), I care a lot more about equal per pupil per capita spending (by force of law) than I do about lowering my tax bill at the margin. But the point is, enforced public school parity would probably not raise my tax bill. Welfare just isn’t as popular as it used to be (even for those on the Left), and I think people do consider spending on inner city schools as a form of welfare. Maybe they didn’t 30 years ago, but 30 years of welfare-bashing has taken its toll, and to unsophisticated ppl (read: Americans), it is all welfare. Makes it easier that way. You don’t have to think about it. I volunteer at an inner city school. It is not fun because of the rampant misbehavior. When the kids tell me what their lives are like it is sad. Still, I consider important work even though it sometimes seems hopeless.

how would vouchers be ‘requiring rich parents to get much of an education’? the tax money would be attached to the kid and the family would have control of where the kid goes. This would help address property values issues by helping to break undesirable school districts having a monopoly on neighborhoods and families could move their kids to schools they actually like without having to try to sell their homes or move in a down market.

People who want their kids to continue in the local school will have that option. Parents who aren’t satisfied can shop for another option vs fighting city hall, so to speak.

I’ll give you our process of jury selection is insane. All I have ever had to say is 1) I have an engineering degree and 2) my aunt and uncle are cops. One or the other will get me off a jury every time.

As for the UK’s “professional” civil service, hey, I’ve watched Monty Python and “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”, so that pig won’t fly either side of the Pond. Does the UK still have the Ministry of Silly Walks?

And again, the UK’s professional civil service produces far less miss-charging than America’s system of having often-elected prosecutors cosying up to the police. For that matter, it plain produces a lower rate of charging, given the test of “in the public interest”…

Your jury selection process is also insane. There are very, very few get-outs or eliminations in the UK system. (Like knowing the offender or victim…the only question asked is if you can give a fair hearing to both sides!)

’1. Increased aggregate spending on public education is not a bad thing.’

Lots of fat could be cut out of public education- drug testing, bloated sports programs, bureaucratic testing, etc. We should be reducing the monopoly of public education and looking for innovation. We continue to throw money at under-performing schools and they continue to under-perform. Let’s try something else.

’2. That said, my speculative guess is that national-level public education spending parity would serve to reduce, over the long run (but not neccessarily the short run) money spent on pub ed.’

I can find nothing to support this- why would anyone think any national-level program would ever reduce spending on anything? Elinor Ostrom has done some interesting studies on the effectiveness of larger govt agencies vs smaller, seemingly less-efficient agencies. Her studies support smaller govt agencies.

’3. Enforced spending parity in criminal cases would almost certainly drastically reduce government spending in this area. On this point, I don’t even think reasonable (and smart) ppl can disagree.’

I think we could do more good faster by legalizing marijuana and limiting or eliminating immunity for prosecutors and cops. Adding more money to an already corrupt system won’t fix it, in my opinion. This sounds like it may be a reasonable idea, but it wouldn’t be the first thing I’d consider.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-open-debate-drug-war-legalization-not-answer-235438024–abc-news-politics.html

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/ex-reporter-sues-alleged-police-brutality-deleted-off-110116123–abc-news-topstories.html

Here’s the Agitator money quote:

“We have proof that she deleted the clip,” said [plaintiff's attorney] Crow. “It’s a pretty egregious case; I think the officer almost committed a crime by tampering with evidence. Because she’s an officer she could get away with it, I think if she was a regular citizen a criminal complaint could’ve been filed.”

All I have to add is … no fucking shit.

With courts closed for most of every January, that means a journeyman defence barrister’s income tops out at $66k if he works every single day. Pay your clerk, your professional fees, the odd gown/wig repair, and you’re earning less than the median.

So there’s no incentive for anyone who’s any good to specialise in Crim unless they have a VERY long horizon. OR… unless they take on more prosecutions (most crim barristers work both sides), for which they are paid more.

Example: barristers who represent the State at “criminal mental impairment” hearings (where decisions are made regarding the continued incarceration of mentally-ill inmates): they get $1500 per *court session*, and a lot of them are not particularly talented or diligent.

The brute fact is, if you go to the bar and try to be one of those earnest guys who helps protect his fellow man from the State’s lidded glaze, mailed fist and hooded claw… well, you will probably earn less than median earnings for the first 3 or 4 years. Then – if you’re both good and lucky (i.e., you get to junior on a high-profile case) you will get to make a decent living.

But everyone in the public will think that your job is about getting the guilty off, on some or other “technicality”.

THAT is the big thing that makes life as a defence barrister difficult – firstly, that your social contacts (those who are not crim defence barristers) think you’re dodgy (yeah, I know – boo hoo, right)… but that is also the case in court – AND juries think “There is no way that the State would prosecute someone they didn’t think is guilty.”

Judges’ instructions are lenient on prosecutors, and appellate courts reject appeals with ratio decidendi that make it clear that the appellate judge is using circumlocution to rationalise what its clearly just a ‘courtesy’ to the Learned Brother Judge who erred. (One case in particular sticks in my craw, but there are plenty).

Anyway… this is in my face at the minute because
(a) The Lovely decided to take the new-fangled Bar exam (after 15 years as a solicitor) and I’m trying to encourage her to specialise in insolvency; and
(b) an old University chum who speicalises in Crim recently made ‘silk’ (formerly ‘Queens Counsel’, now ‘State Counsel’).

I want to make it clear though – IANAL: I detest their stupid mediaeval set-piece theatrics, their incestuous relationship with the parasite-political class, and the smugness… oh dear fucking God the smugness. (The Lovely is not like that, and nor is the chum who made silk: but as a class, lawyers – and worse, barristers and judges – are insufferable).

Plus I’m against compulsory unions generally, so gold-collar unions (for lawyers, doctors, dentists, accountants etc) are particularly disgusting. But it so happens that my Chapter lodge is chock-a-block with barristers and judges. The best raconteur of the bunch is an old QC who did may MANY high-profile crim defences back in the day… and all the old judges think he’s a swell chap, but dodgy as a thrip’ny bit.

I seriously think you have underestimated the complexity of the situation. Certainly SOME forces in various level of government see the system that way. Others see it as a way to placate the masses for the inadequacy of the State. Still others actually care about Justice (and Radley has been delighted too highlight a few of them). Like any human enterprise, the “Justice System” is pulled in many directions by many impulses.

No, it isn’t perfect. it is, in fact, far from it. But there really is precious little historical background – other than our own evolution – for a system of laws that makes much of an effort at all to respect the rights and property of the un-connected.

Fight for it, dammit! If you shrug your shoulders and give up what little progress we have made will slip away, and we will get something devised by some self-appointed Ruler.

Its not only the unchecked powers our prosecutors have, hell even the grand jury system is now rigged in their favor… since they control the entire process…

Its fucking nauseating to think we still call it justice…

There’s also no requirement that a prosecutor pursue evidence that may cast doubt on the suspect’s guilt. That means it is ethical for a prosecutor, according to the ABA, to ask a jury to pronounce a defendant guilty with a degree of certainty that the prosecutor may not possess himself . . .

And this is what lawyers refer to as “ethics.” [SPIT]