let the prisoner choose

Once more, justice is rejected in favor of convenience. Civilian courts have many checks and balances. Why? Because experience has shown that without those checks and balances, innocent people are condemned, and guilty people go free.

One day that innocent person might be you. Or the guilty person, wrongly freed, might come and get you. So what can we do? The simple answer is to let the accused choose their own court and judge. (The big answer is land rent, but here I am only looking at one narrow area.)

If we don't let prisoners choose their own judges, then we admit that judges will come to different conclusions. In other words, some will free guilty men, and some will condemn innocent men. If we let them choose, then we provide pressure to make our system truly fair. Until then, there is no pressure for fairness.

Of course, every decision has financial costs. the accused, by creating that cost, is liable for the cost. This would create a pressure to choose the most efficient (lowest cost) judge. So market forces drive down the price of justice.

Society gets a more just system. The accused gets a fairer trial. And the whole system costs less. Everybody wins.