Lawyersout.com
This process should eliminate some of the woes of our justice system. A court with a single judge making a bench ruling is wrong, even with an appeals court as quality control. In a digital court there are three main goals. (1) To make sure the judge is doing the job that they were hired for (2) to make sure the verdict is within the parameters of the law; even if the judge is wrong and outside the law, the system will have caught it before it causes damage. (3) To give confidence to the public that the justice system has evolved into something they can trust.
In a traditional paper court, the judge is in complete control until the trial is over. Only then will that judge judgment be questioned by the appeals court. This cost extra in time and money and is really not that effective because the appeals court is overworked.
Quality Control
Testing will of course be required. Simple Justice Court is ready now. Please contact our government and demand an upgrade to our broken justice system.
Since a digital court hears a more condensed case without the wasted time. It should be possible to hear the case in a much shorter time. This would allow the resources of three separate courtrooms to be combined to hear the case in less time than a single case in the paper court
Since the judge is in control of the court room and the outcome of the case; even in a jury trial. The judge should be impeccable. There is undeniable evidence, this is not always the case; we will not go into that further here, only to point out The Judge should be given the most scrutiny. The judge should be looked at, on a continual basis. Simple Justice Court was designed for this.
We at lawyersout.com hope no one is offended by what we propose here. We feel an honest judge would be willing to prove their knowledge of the law and should be happy to assist in the elimination of bad judges that have plagued our justice system and tainted their reputation. And to regain the trust of the public; they would be willing to participate in this procedure. We are confident there are good judges out there; otherwise we would be recommending something else.
The Process is simple. It involves comparing judge decisions, against other judges. In our example three judges per case, would be sufficient; it could be a lot more, or a little less, but more than one judge to be fair. However, many judges there are each judge acts as if they were the only judge Hearing the case. They act independently of each other; they all can assess the evidence presented separately and individually in a different location. It’s important that the judges that are picked to hear the case are ignorant of the other judge’s identity and especially their decisions and each judge is completely oblivious of the others verdict. This process of comparing each judge’s decisions against the others should give a fascinating perspective of how the law is interpreted. To eliminate the possibility of cheating the system; we suggest the judges in a small network chosen from a single courthouse be isolated without communication to anyone until they finalize their decision. In a larger network this would not be necessary, but laws should be enacted that would sternly enforce “judges do not discuss their work with anyone and especially with other judges” this is important, sequester the judge is the only answer.
The wrong decisions should be what they are concerned about. There should be a limit on how many wrong decisions are allowed. We would like to think one is too many. Yet, everybody makes mistakes, don’t they, you decide. Judges, knowing that there will be other judges that they will be compared to. Will be on their very best behavior, isn’t that what we really want?
When all the details of the judges verdicts are worked out the case moves to the jury.
Simple Justice Court has some exceptional capabilities; a digital file can be played and watched by as many people that have access to it. They can be in different places at the same time. This would allow more than one judge to hear the case; this would give a boost in accuracy, multiplied by the number of judges hearing the case, as long as they would give their verdict on their own individually. This would eliminate in our opinion the most vulnerable part of our justice system to corruption the single judge making a decision on their own.
Somewhere, in the depths of the clerk’s office, or someplace else, there is a desk; someone is comparing all the different judge’s decisions. We can’t give much detail, but it should be possible. There should be citizen involvement, possibly an independent agency, with no ties to the present justice system. They should be looking for inconsistencies If three judges are unanimous something must be right, as long as they are independent of one another. If there’s three judges, and one judge feels one way and the other two judges see it a different way there’s something wrong, but we are not sure majority should rule, the two judges could be wrong and the one judge could be right. Seniority of a judge should not give any credence either; this all has to be filtered somehow. When they have sorted out the details, a final judgment should be announced. A scoreboard should be erected so everyone can see the results. This extra step should keep judges on their toes and focus on doing the best job possible, with evidence, if they’re not.