Hacker News Reader

Comment by SeanDav | Hacker News Reader

The USA seems to have the most incredibly lousy "justice" system. Laws are made by lobbyists and enforcement of those laws, sometimes involving judgments of billions of dollars seem to rest on some good ol' boys in some dingy Texas courtroom.

Surely it can't be as bad as it seems to this outsider - can anyone point to a good guide on how this all works?

View on HN

> Laws are made by lobbyists and enforcement of those laws, sometimes involving judgments of billions of dollars seem to rest on some good ol' boys in some dingy Texas courtroom.

It's not nearly as bad as you make it sound, but there's certainly a kernel of truth to it -- not just in patent law, but in law generally. For example, look at Tesla Motors having to contend with state laws protecting car dealers, and Uber and Lyft with taxicab laws, and AirBnB with hotel laws, and craft brewers with alcohol-distribution laws. All those laws have at least some "rational basis," but it's no secret who pushed to get them enacted and who pushes to keep them in force.

In law school, I had a hard time getting my mind around that brute fact: Power matters, even in the legal system; no matter where you go, people push to get the government to (i) help them do what they like and (ii) stop others from doing what they (the pushers) don't like. I tell my students not to be disillusioned or discouraged about that, but to accept it for what it is; plan around it; and get on with their business. [EDIT: I agree with the sibling commenters who say that in this regard the U.S. is way better than a lot of places.]

The U.S. has a tradition of litigation, which forces all these issues into the public. Do you think there's less influence-peddling in say France or Italy? In places where the decision-makers can't get sued over every little action, you don't even need to have a lobbyist make a law.

Take something like bribing officials in developing countries to get contracts. European companies are far more likely to engage in such behavior than American ones. What do you think that says about their behavior at home?

"Take something like bribing officials in developing countries to get contracts. European companies are far more likely to engage in such behavior than American ones."

It's legal for European companies to bribe foreign governments to get contracts. The Europeans don't consider their laws to apply outside their borders, so their companies can comply with local law.

The USA has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act that punishes US citizens or companies with criminal penalties on return to the USA for ordinary business practices in foreign lands. An ambition to clean up foreign corruption keeps US companies out of some countries.

The fact that it's legal doesn't mean it's not morally objectionable. You can argue that not the choice not to make it illegal is a jurisdictional one, but that doesn't change the fact that European companies engage in the practice when they could choose not to. I think that says a lot about European attitudes towards corruption versus American ones.

The U.K. also has the UK Bribery Act which is appears to be more expansive than the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the U.S. counter-part). Like the FCPA, it applies to acts globally for companies with part of their business within the U.K..

It's a very messy system, no doubt. It sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. But it's remarkably public, and there's usually a clear challenge path.

I'll put it this way, if I was suspected of a crime, I'd rather be tried in the U.S. system than just about anywhere else.

I'd rather not--consider how few cases make it to trial.

There is a massive amount of douchebaggery that goes on to keep you from ending up in court, and at that point, they'll nail you to the wall for being uppity. At least, that seems to be the consensus these days.

Plea bargaining is more like a gambling buy out. Plea "guilty" and we'll guarantee you a lighter sentence, plea "not guilty" and be prepared for a long and expensive trial, but you might get out of it.

Actually, the trial judges in the U.S. have a pretty good reputation as far as fairness and incorruptibility (sure it happens, but it's not really common).

It's better than say Italy, which is considered pretty suspect or Japan, where you know the conviction rate is like 90%.

Here's one historical explanation of common law that might provide some insight:

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/nyufinal.pdf

...and not directly applicable for this discussion, I also like "The Myth of the Rule of Law":

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

By far the worst part of our legal system is the massive of proliferation of laws over the past few decades that govern every single aspect of our lives -- by far more laws that any one person can understand and remember.

The result is that some of the most honest, ethical members of our society are being charged with felony offenses for "crimes" that 10 years ago might have resulted in an oral reprimand from a boss at work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com