What if members of the public were engaged and allowed to cast votes (electronic means) to determine the fate of a criminal?
What are the pros and cons? Argue and discuss -
Possible Pros: Members of the public should be allowed to weigh in on criminal sentencing for major crimes such as murder, treason, rape, terrorism etc. This would be fair because a judge may be swayed by personal emotions and feelings which would not be the case when large groups of people were to cast votes. This would result in a fair sentencing.
Possible Cons: Members of the public may vote for a harsher punishment for criminal based on gender, looks, race or social status. In countries where one ethnic group forms the majority, criminals from minority groups may be disadvantaged.
Will this system work? Should it be implemented?
Updates
1 y
The court proceedings will be lived streamed and members of the public can watch to review the exchange of evidence etc before voting/weighing in on the punishment.
What would you think of a justice system where members of the public weigh in to pass sentence on criminals?
I don't support that idea at all, there was a episode of the Orville that kind of was like this but also with popularity so anyone could vote on sentencing for anything, based on looks or whatever.
I do however support the idea of the victim of certain crimes, physically violent ones, like rape, sex offenses, assault, etc... not non violent ones like stealing to let the victim of the crime determine what kind of sentence they should get and for how long.
The idea of a victim having no say in the punishment of the person who hurt them is insane... that isn't justice to let strangers decide to let them off on a light sentence even after a conviction and admission that they did the crime but they are sorry so they get a ultra light sentence.
That is a great way to make the victim turn into a criminal to try and get justice when they feel the system failed them... and now they need to dish out some vigilante justice.
What would be the limits or range of possible consequences voted upon by the public? Would there be a baseline guarantee of essential human rights to the criminal, or would you be able to vote for burning at the stake if you wanted to?
To some extent, you can already indirectly vote for harsher sentences for criminals. If you vote for representatives who believe in being tough on crime, you'll get harsher sentences across the board.
The trouble comes when you need members of the public to properly interpret a legal case and then do the work of categorizing it appropriately. The general public simply does not have the expertise to do this properly without extensive guidance, at which point you just default to a basic jury system which we already have; the public is advised by legal teams to make up their minds in accordance with what the evidence suggests, within the legal bounds set by the judge. The punishment follows from the evidence for the most part. If a jury votes to convict, then they have essentially already voted to punish the person. How much they're punished is determined by law, which is also influenced by vote on a wider political scale.
No. They already "weigh-in" by voting for their elected representatives who make laws on the sentencing of criminal convictions. You want tougher penalties? Vote for someone who advocates for that. You want lesser penalties or decriminalization? Vote for someone who advocates for that.
As to specific cases, no, that's unconstitutional.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
1 y
The criminal justice system shouldn’t be turned into a reality show. The public’s role is to determine guilt on a jury. Leave the sentencing to judges who understand sentencing laws and have a point of reference as to how other defendants were sentenced under similar circumstances. Also, someone who routinely handles criminal proceedings as a profession is going to be less prone to being swayed by emotion and personal bias than the general public is. Letting the mob decide is a bad idea.
Watch the season 1 episode of "The Orville" called "Majority Rule". It involves a society where people up-vote or down-vote individuals who commit crimes. If someone gets a million downvotes, the authorities wipe their brain.
Terrible idea. People in general believe in harsh punishments and torture when they can be anonymous. This is why lynch mobs, which is what you are suggesting, are outlawed.
Bad idea people will be sentencing people unfairly over some politics BS or some other nonsense. This is why they have to go through such a long process to pick jurors so there is no bias.
Nah, it wouldn't work. You'd have people like me, wanting the defendant to hang. I'd probably be banned from turning up, never mind offering my opinion.
Just like the bean jar experiment, I believe the informed and uninformed would balance each other out, passing a fair judgement. Of course this is only my belief. But I see your point.
Yep if the community was a limited number say 100 people got to vote then it’s more likely to be effective as they would care more. Allowing millions to vote includes millions who care about their daily lives and their vote becomes a way to alleviate boredom.
That’s why it said for major crimes and murder, rape, terrorism, treason where the judge already finds him/her guilty. The judge still has to determine if he or she is guilty but the members of the public get to weigh in on the punishment
Eg. The court finds Mr Xxx guilty of rape. All evidence proves his crime and he has admitted. The judge passes his judgement that he is found guilty in the eyes of law. Then the members of the public get to weigh in as well.
