<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>glial</author><text>&amp;gt; The Founders were more concerned about facing a duel than a criminal conviction.&lt;p&gt;This is because &amp;quot;their class of people&amp;quot; were an honor-based society, in which reputation was the currency of power, and people with honor were expected to prioritize the national interests above their own. That is no longer the case.&lt;p&gt;In other words, there &lt;i&gt;hasn&amp;#x27;t&lt;/i&gt; been a duel. So there should be another enforcement mechanism for making Presidents prioritize the nation above themselves that actually works.</text><parent_chain><item><author>pyuser583</author><text>Sure.&lt;p&gt;The Founders envisioned an extremely weak criminal justice system, especially for &amp;quot;their class of people.&amp;quot; Defendants were given extremely strong protections, and convictions were the exception, not the rule.&lt;p&gt;The Founders were more concerned about facing a duel than a criminal conviction.&lt;p&gt;So they added other mechanisms for presidential accountability: impeachment, elections, and the weakness of the office.&lt;p&gt;These other mechanisms have become weaker and weaker, while the criminal justice system has become stronger and stronger.&lt;p&gt;Impeachment&amp;#x27;s happen, but not Senate convictions. The political parties have created a duopoloy on power which allow them to run weak candidates. Congress is less and less willing to hold presidents of their own party accountable. Dueling is prohibited not just criminally, but constitionally in most states.&lt;p&gt;At the same time the criminal justice system is becoming more and more powerful. Convictions are in the high 90%. Juries are very weak and at the mercy of powerful prosecutors.&lt;p&gt;The Constitution simply didn&amp;#x27;t envision a situation where the criminal justice system is more likley to hold someone accountable than an election or Congress.&lt;p&gt;Impeachment, elections, and duels no longer deter bad conduct. Convictions do.&lt;p&gt;So we have an edge case: a system that can only hold an ex-President accountable via a criminal charge.&lt;p&gt;Edge cases are weird. They create &amp;quot;sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn&amp;#x27;t&amp;quot; situations. And that&amp;#x27;s where we are now.</text></item><item><author>afavour</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m dismayed by this ruling but I&amp;#x27;m curious: can someone defend it? I&amp;#x27;m able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I&amp;#x27;m just not seeing the counterpoint?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts</title><url>https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-immunity-2dc0d1c2368d404adc0054151490f542</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>chadash</author><text>&lt;i&gt;&amp;gt; Convictions are in the high 90%. Juries are very weak and at the mercy of powerful prosecutors.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is a bit misleading. DAs have latitude about what to prosecute and if they don&amp;#x27;t think they can win, they dont have to bring it to court.</text><parent_chain><item><author>pyuser583</author><text>Sure.&lt;p&gt;The Founders envisioned an extremely weak criminal justice system, especially for &amp;quot;their class of people.&amp;quot; Defendants were given extremely strong protections, and convictions were the exception, not the rule.&lt;p&gt;The Founders were more concerned about facing a duel than a criminal conviction.&lt;p&gt;So they added other mechanisms for presidential accountability: impeachment, elections, and the weakness of the office.&lt;p&gt;These other mechanisms have become weaker and weaker, while the criminal justice system has become stronger and stronger.&lt;p&gt;Impeachment&amp;#x27;s happen, but not Senate convictions. The political parties have created a duopoloy on power which allow them to run weak candidates. Congress is less and less willing to hold presidents of their own party accountable. Dueling is prohibited not just criminally, but constitionally in most states.&lt;p&gt;At the same time the criminal justice system is becoming more and more powerful. Convictions are in the high 90%. Juries are very weak and at the mercy of powerful prosecutors.&lt;p&gt;The Constitution simply didn&amp;#x27;t envision a situation where the criminal justice system is more likley to hold someone accountable than an election or Congress.&lt;p&gt;Impeachment, elections, and duels no longer deter bad conduct. Convictions do.&lt;p&gt;So we have an edge case: a system that can only hold an ex-President accountable via a criminal charge.&lt;p&gt;Edge cases are weird. They create &amp;quot;sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn&amp;#x27;t&amp;quot; situations. And that&amp;#x27;s where we are now.</text></item><item><author>afavour</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m dismayed by this ruling but I&amp;#x27;m curious: can someone defend it? I&amp;#x27;m able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I&amp;#x27;m just not seeing the counterpoint?</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts</title><url>https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-immunity-2dc0d1c2368d404adc0054151490f542</url></story>