Where is 1% of the American adult population?

[kandrathe]

I disagree with laws, such as this three strikes law, or mandatory minimums which remove imposition of appropriate sentences from the Judicial process.

Yes. And no. A large part of the problem with the judicial process is that it is run by people. The law should be equal. Two persons with similar background and history each of which is accused, tried, and convicted of the same crime should receive equivalent punishment. That has been far from the case.

The judicial system needs to be overhauled. The requirements for being a judge need to be tightened. Judges need to be constantly evaluated on the basis of the results of appeals of their cases. The average person has never been capable of thinking logically. Add to that the increasing use of science and probability in testimony, and understanding the evidence and arguments is even further out of the capability of most people. We need to establish a position of professional juror, with appropriate requirements in law, science, logic, etc. And, finally (or maybe first), we need to go to a judicial system where the objectives are truth and justice and away from the legal system where all that matters is the cleverness of the lawyers and of their arguments.

A large part of the laws restricting the authority of the judges came about because a large number of judges showed they did not have the ability to handle that authority. I want to give judges that authority back, but not until we replace the incompetent ones.

I could live with that. I agree with the need for sentencing guidelines, but I think there should be allowances for special circumstances. Perhaps, an judicial panel that reviews the application of allowable special circumstances for trials where they exist (e.g. sentenced for 5 years, 3 years stayed for aiding the prosecution).

I wish there was something we could do with overreaching prosecutions too.