The first question that comes to mind though is how do they come to know exactly what level of evidence a given judge requires to convict, if they virtually never see an example of the judge not convicting?
It could be that the whole system operates according to established rules, whether formal or informal, that are acknowledged by everyone involved. The prosecutors have to satisfy a certain well-defined bureaucratic procedure when preparing the case, and the judge merely rubber-stamps their papers if this job has been done correctly. Many things in all sorts of bureaucratic institutions work this way, and if the people involved are highly conscientious and not suffering from significant perverse incentives, the results may well be far from terrible.
Interesting.
The first question that comes to mind though is how do they come to know exactly what level of evidence a given judge requires to convict, if they virtually never see an example of the judge not convicting?
It could be that the whole system operates according to established rules, whether formal or informal, that are acknowledged by everyone involved. The prosecutors have to satisfy a certain well-defined bureaucratic procedure when preparing the case, and the judge merely rubber-stamps their papers if this job has been done correctly. Many things in all sorts of bureaucratic institutions work this way, and if the people involved are highly conscientious and not suffering from significant perverse incentives, the results may well be far from terrible.
Well, one way would be to ask the judge.