For you legal people out there
 

I am willing to be persuaded my feeling that there are inequities in the legal system is unfounded.

Last night one of my friends let me know his relative is in some hot water. He said the relatives lawyer thought he could work with the DA until they found out which Judge they drew. They are now scrambling to form a different strategy, but the guys lawyer told him he is basically screwed and now it is a matter of how screwed. This is second hand info. of course.

However, could the justice you recieve be based on which judge you lucked out and drew.

definitely. Plea strategy heavily dependent on the judge you happen to get.

Even here among believers (for the most part) in the LDS church we spend much of our time discussing issues arising from the church leaders' human natures. Does it really surprise you, therefore, that the legal system is not perfect? Here's a news flash: It is run by people, many of whom have different ideas about different topics. If you expect perfection, wait until the judgment bar in the sky. Relatively speaking, however, our system is about as good as you can find.

Of course. Were you born yesterday? It makes all the difference in the world. All the difference. But do you have a better idea?

That is something I would expect a conservative to say. "Sure there are inequities, but do you have a better idea."

Nope I don't. Just wanted to make sure I am right when saying everyone doesn't get equal justice.

No, you're not right. Look, different results don't mean unequal justice. Moreover, as long as the draw isn't biased, then the results are still random and as long as the procedures don't violate rights and the results are lawful, then justice is satisfied. If you don't like the range of possible results, change the laws, but don't assert that the system is inequitable simply because different cases have different results all within the bounds of the system.

That's right. For example, mostly black people in a few southeastern states get the death penalty. It's arguably even worse in the higlhy nuanced and complicated area of business litigation where some of us earn our bread. Very subjective. What judge you get is often outcome determinative.

No we come to a different conclusion. I said I could be persuaded. "No, you're not right" is not a persuasive position.

It maybe justice all right. I just said there are inequities. I will concede to the thought there isn't a better way to do it.

This is a different issue you have raised. I understood him to be complaining about different results for proper charges based upon different judges' attitudes. Rascist application of the DP is obviously unacceptable and does qualify as inequitable.

I thought I explained, albeit perhaps not persuasively, in the rest of myh post. I take it you didn't like it?

You apprenetly assume a different result is an inequity. You also assume the only distinction between cases is a different judge. This is a faulty assumption, as each case is highly unique. When you use the term inequity do you mean in an absolute sense or in a legal sense within our system?