Hacker News Reader

Without jury trials how do other countries with judicial indepence prevent the growth of corruption in the judiciary for civil cases?

(or influence peddling, political horse trading, etc…)

View on HN

Sane countries do not elect their judges by popular vote (or, even worse, by their executive branch), and thus judges are generally apolitical, which removes a lot of incentive for the issues you mention.

It's insane to me that the US accepts that their judiciary are either 'red' or 'blue', and that their opinions are dictated by their tribe.

Seems like a non-sequitur. 'Corruption' is typically not an issue in civil disputes. 'Influence peddling' and 'political horse trading' are not the subject of civil litigation. If you think 'corruption' is influencing judicial remedies- it's certainly a lot easier to bribe a juror than an appointed judge.

Most developed countries using a panel of judges to hear civil disputes score better than the US on corruption indicators, not worse

A panel even of just 3 judges seems a lot more expensive to operate than 1 judge and a dozen jurors?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com