The adverserial "Justice" System
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2011, 07:46 PM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2011 07:58 PM by bemore.)
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
Sometimes I think im out of my depth in certain conversations on here.....Im not as educated as you guys and gals and sometimes I can miss the point completly Blush

But I will have a go at with my POV Smile

Im gonna use BnW as an example here.........to me he comes across as a sensible and logical person with a good educational background. Now lets say that BnW had wronged me in some way and I took him to court over it. If we imagine that we both opted to be our own defense/prosecution then straight away I would be at a disadvantage. The only thing I would have on my side is the truth, however because to me the whole system of law is so so complex I wouldnt have access nor knowledge of all the little loopholes of law......compared to BnW.

So the chances are.......simply because of my background and education that BnW stands a higher chance of getting off "scot free"

He could call upon some law that is very old (1800s+).....some little loophole that is totally unknown to me but still valid today, that could throw the case out completly.

I hope people sort of see where im coming from when I say that.

Also when you look at law in general it has high amounts of money involved with it.......Lawyers (or solicitors in the uk) and judges are normally on very very good money, because they charge a lot for there services. I consider myself quite poor compared to a lot of people......im on minimum wage and there is absoloutly no way I could afford the full services of a lawyer/solicitor.

So because I dont have money.........I have no access to my full potential of defense which in turn means I cannot afford justice.

I have been to court a few times (not for me ha ha.....just accompanying friends) and most of the time the judges are quite old and I would say they are "upper class"

These judges have lived completly different lifes to me and my friends......there experience and outlook is quite possibly very very different.........I know they use the framework of Law to try to make decisions fairly but even so.......most of these people are so out of touch with being able to relate to "my generation" which I think when coming to any sort of decision may play an important role.

I think judges should do it on a voluntary basis........they shouldnt get paid at all......Would this stop people being judges??? I dont think so because if I could apply to train, for free.....even if my training was part time and took ten years......as long as I passed a test to prove my knowledge and competence I would be eligible and I would do it. There are caring people out there that would do this........and maybe its this desire of care to society and justice that would carry these people through...sort the wheat from the chaff as it were...not the end goal of earning a good living.

There should be more than one judge.....the more the better really.....multiple minds working on a solution/resolution is much better than just one mind. Taking time to sum up and discuss all aspect of each case.....to work out a solution on an individual basis.......because law covers a lot of things, but life isnt as simple as a set of rules.

Lets say you have three judges.........You could have me as one im middle aged and from a poor background and grew up on the streets, so I have knowledge of that. Then you could have Zatamon as a judge as well......being much older than me he would have a lot of life experience and be quite wise in thinking........then you could have somebody hopefully a bit younger.......Maybe a young judge in training, but who grew up in todays younger generation. Combined together all three of us would almost cover all apsect of society..........so when we dicussed things they wouldnt be "stagnant" and together we would encompass a massive range of understanding and viewpoints.

Not be limited to one judge who lives in a massive house........that drives expensive cars......and who mixes in "rich" circles like I envisage all judges to do so.

Lawyers/solicitors/representatives should be appointed........not chosen nor have there services bought. This will straight away make it fairer......that a decent attempt at defense would be open to everybody. If you dont think your appointed representative is good enough then you can choose to have another appointed until you feel happy enough.

There shouldnt be prosecution nor defense, as crazy as that may sound........because I cant honestly see how justice can work when a lawyer is payed to defend his/her client.....in the knowledge that they could be guilty???

I could tell my solicitor that yes..........I did murder that man and I could tell him the truth about what happened......then my solicitor walks in the court and defends me......how can that be gaining justice???

Its just illogical beyond all comprehension.

So anything that you tell your representative is on your own back.......you could try to lie to your representative and spin a story.........but the evidence will paint a different picture in court. The truth will out.

Impartial is what I think im trying to achieve here.

Laws should have a certain life........lets say 20 years. After that time these laws should be looked at and either updated/changed.

There is a law over in the UK where If I am in a certain city in the uk (i forget which one and sorry im too lazy to google it) then I am allowed to shoot a welshman with a longbow but only after midnight.

If this law had a life......and was looked at today.......then obv it would be removed because it bears no relevance to todays society.

Laws should also be made by each country.........Not like the current system where 5 out of 6 laws in my country are now decided by the EU.

I want to carry on but I can hardly keep my eyes open lol. I will add a few more of my thoughts tommorow Big Grin

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2011, 08:26 PM
 
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
(16-10-2011 06:36 PM)BnW Wrote:  I am in any way qualified to determine, all by myself, what is in society's best interest. I certainly have my own opinions as to what is in society's best interest but my opinions are no more or less valid than the opinions of anyone else. So, when you tell me that somehow my responsibility should be not to my client but to society as a whole, I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

Bnw, I don't have a lot of time to respond in detail right now but I will do it tomorrow. Till then, I think we can agree that society's interest is best served if murderers (like O.J.Simpson or Karla Homolka) don't walk free and innocent people (like Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard and Guy Paul Morin) don't get convicted.

Quote:I'm willing to be convinced, though, and am looking forward to reading about your alternative system.

...and I am willing to do my best to do that, but you will have to be willing to look outside the box to follow my arguments.

@bemore:
You are a lot closer to the truth than you may suspect. I will answer your post in detail tomorrow.

Till then.....Smile
Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2011, 09:52 PM
 
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
OK, I am back...

Before you attempt to cure the patient, you do have to come up with the correct diagnosis.

My diagnosis: humanity is insane.

Thousands of nuclear warheads on hair-trigger alert, aimed at each others' cities, wives and children is ample evidence of that. And if it is not enough, then consider the man-made climate change that will destroy our habitat for us during this century. We have overwhelming scientific evidence for our contribution to it, and whet do we do? -- we increase this contribution day by day in an accelerating way.

Now that I have a diagnosis, I will have to think about the cure.

However, the cure can not mean suppressing the symptoms or focusing on unrelated side issues.

I have 2 examples to illustrate the problem here.

One is about Chief Inspector Dreyfuss, Inspector Cluseau’s boss (in the” Pink Panther” movie) who had a nervous twitch in the eye, as one of the symptoms of his insanity. He desperately tried to control the twitch and even succeeded for a while. We know how it ended.

The other is a joke: This fellow tells the doctor that he can’t control himself: he farts all the time, but luckily, it makes no sound or smell. The doctor gives him a pill to take for a week. After the week he returns, complaining that not only he still farts all the time but now you can hear it. The doctor gives him another pill to take for a week. After the week he returns, very angry, complaining that not only you can hear it now, but you can also smell it. The doctor calmly says: “now that we have corrected you problem of hearing and smelling, we can deal with the real problem of your farting all the time.

What is my point?

You can’t solve the problems arising from insanity by suppressing a few of the symptoms or focusing on side issues.

So what has all this got to do with the justice system?

Warning: Thinking outside the box is required from here on.

Human society, at the current stage of biological and social evolution is self-destructive which is the result of functional insanity.

Fundamental structural changes are required in order to turn our downward spiral around and avoid self-destruction in the very foreseeable future.

Without these fundamental structural changes, I see no hope of surviving the 21st century.

In the “Proposal for a new social contract” thread I suggested one such structural change. Without that kind of a correction, I see no hope at all for humanity.

How would this apply to the justice system we are talking about?

Simple.

First – remove money from the system and it will eliminate most of the problems. Members of the legal profession will not be motivated any more (with few exceptions) by the desire to WIN their cases, regardless of guilt or innocence of their clients.

Second - once people don’t have to live in fear, poverty and insecurity, the rate of crime will drop drastically, so the justice system will not be overwhelmed with cases.

Then, you can think about the details of the justice system where practitioners can focus on doing justice, instead of winning at any cost.

I would do away with defense and prosecution altogether – instead I would appoint experts relevant to the case, to study, evaluate and report on all the evidence available in the case from interviews, police reports and facts collected.

They could submit their report to either an impartial judge (or 3 judges, as bemore suggested) or even to a jury to study, deliberate and make decisions. The objective of all the participants would be to find the truth, instead of winning for one side or for the other.

I am sure a lot of details would have to be ironed out but this is the general direction it should proceed in.

The major difference would be: impartiality, desire to find the truth, and to do justice – instead of winning at any cost, regardless of guilt or innocence.

The bail system should be completely divorced from money – instead it should use the best judgment available to evaluate the danger the accused is posing to society if left at large.

The system would not be perfect, mistakes would be made – but far fewer than in our present system which is heavily biased to monied and political interests.

Could this new social contract be corrupted? Of course it could. Human beings are very good at corrupting anything, given time. But it would work for a while, maybe long enough for people to develop a taste for sanity.

Do I seriously think that the proposed changes are possible?

Not really.

So what good is this fantasy? Not very practical for the moment, other than, maybe, help some people think outside the box and consider something beyond rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic..
Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 07:49 AM
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
I agree with you Zat that a lot of what the human race does is Insane.....I dont wish to stray off topic but Man Made global warming is a crock of sh*t. A lot of research was based upon the melting himalayas and this has now been proven to be wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...35692.html

(there is many many articles based upon this.....this is just one of them)

In fact ALL of the planets in our solar system are warming up......yet despite this and multiple experts in the field coming forward saying so....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKrw6ih8Gto ........we are still gonna have huge "carbon taxes" and changes.

Ill leave it at that, maybe further talks could be done on another thread.

I think your system pretty much matches my own vision.......the removal of any sort of motive other than truth and justice would opnly do to improve the system. Yes the system may be open to being mistreated......but with no motive like I said other than truth......I think these would soon be exposed........any cases against it could easily be found out using its own truthfull impartial system. With openess and not being afraid to admit mistakes this could be improved upon with time.

Again I dont want to stary off topic but we could very easily survive without money.........if they made these available to everybody.

3D printers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Why would you need huge massive corporations producing items when you can produce them yourself???

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 07:58 AM
 
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
(17-10-2011 07:49 AM)bemore Wrote:  I dont wish to stray off topic but Man Made global warming is a crock of sh*t. A lot of research was based upon the melting himalayas and this has now been proven to be wrong.

Suggestion, bemore: read "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer or "Keeping our Cool" by Andrew Weaver.

However, this is a topic for another thread. Let's just stay with justice here. Smile
Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 08:30 AM
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
What it sounds to me like is the way NA natives have always conducted justice: the council of elders listened to everyone concerned and made a determination of what solution posed the least possible harm to the tribe, the complainant and the accused wrongdoer.
It used to work quite well. I don't know how well it's working now, but in parts of Canada something like the traditional system is being reinstated - because mechanistic settler law was working very badly, if at all.

Of course, without money and political corruption, the present British-based system would also work quite well - except that it isn't much concerned with the wrongdoer. It has safeguards (not universally practised) for the rights of the .accused, but once convicted, the wrongdoer is pretty much on the scrapheap of society.

This is the point i would like to address. I have little doubt that the determination of culpability may be improved: more accurate, faster, more certain. We can, even in the present, flawed system, calibrate degrees of culpability. But we're not very good at the next step: how to exonerate the not-guilty and what to do with the guilty.

The First nations system of justice and Zatamon's system of justice are - at least potentially - capable of rehabilitating members of society who have, for whatever reason, run afoul of its rules. That panel of judges who care only about truth might then pass the prisoner on to a panel of social workers who decide how best to punish, correct, reform and re-integrate the wrongdoer.

In all these efforts, i believe the most important ingredient is community.
One of the biggest problems in the present system is sheer size and diversity.
Racial conflicts, ethnic enmities, the incompatibility of world-views, makes fairness impossible. No single set of laws and procedures, no matter how complex, can accommodate individuals from every culture and walk of life, vastly different environment and experience, equally.
Whatever the structure of law enforcement is, keep it local, so that everyone involved understands the circumstances, life-style, aspirations, motivations, background, neighbourhood and family dynamics that lead to problem behaviour. Then they can reasonably consider methods of correcting and preventing disruptive patterns of behaviour.
Sort of like eliminating every other tier of the judicial system and expanding coroner's inquests to fill the void. Not a bad idea, imo.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 10:24 AM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2011 10:30 AM by BnW.)
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
Trying to stick to the immediate topic here,

Bemore

First, I will never understand this logic that "free" is somehow better. I also don't get the idea that a volunteer is better than a professional. I just don't understand the logic. Also, judges don't decide guilt or innocence: a jury of your peers will make that determination based on, in theory, the evidence presented. Sometimes juries make decisions that are not at all supported but that's a different debate. But, the judge is there to ensure the law is followed, that's all. Unless you opt for a bench trial, a judge is not an adjudicator of the facts. With summary offenses (crimes that carry modest penalties) they sometimes are but generally speaking they are not.

Secondly, you seem to have some kind of issue with people who have more than you. Maybe I'm reading your wrong but that is my take. So, if you're upset that a judge or a solicitor has a bigger house, nicer car, etc. here is my suggestion: go to school to study law, work hard at it, get a job in law, and work hard at that. There is a time tested formula for success: hard work + effort = success. Doing nothing leads to nothing. Somehow we are more and more a society of people who think they are owed something and are entitled to something. I'm all for helping people out who are down on their luck, need a helping hand, etc. But, the idea that you should have what others worked hard for because they have it and you don't is absurd. And, while I may be misreading your comments, that is the sense I'm getting.

But, if you want a society without money where do make what we need, then grow your own food, build your own house and your own car, weave your own clothes from animals you keep on your land, etc., and stop acting like the rest of us owe you something.

Zataman

First, I reject your starting premise that humanity is "insane". I'm not even sure what relevance that has, but, as a general rule, I'm typically dubious of any claim that starts with "it's so clear to me and lost on the rest of you" or words to that effect. So, I'm going to focus on the specifics of your proposal instead of the lead up, if that is ok.

So, hitting these in order:

Quote:First – remove money from the system and it will eliminate most of the problems. Members of the legal profession will not be motivated any more (with few exceptions) by the desire to WIN their cases, regardless of guilt or innocence of their clients.

I think your statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. I also don't get what money has to do with assessing guilt. Lawyers are motivated to represent their clients and their clients best interest. Early in my career I had a few pro bono cases I took on (if you're not familiar with the term, it basically means I worked for free). In those examples, I took my responsibilities very seriously and worked to represent my clients. In the few cases I had, I managed to get a resolution that I, and the clients, thought were reasonable. But, the goal of the lawyer is to advocate for his client, not society. That is the part of the legislator and the judge, regardless of whether money is involved or not. As a secondary matter, if I'm not paid to do my job, then I'm going to quit because I can find more enjoyable ways to spend 75 hours a week.

Quote:I would do away with defense and prosecution altogether – instead I would appoint experts relevant to the case, to study, evaluate and report on all the evidence available in the case from interviews, police reports and facts collected.

They could submit their report to either an impartial judge (or 3 judges, as bemore suggested) or even to a jury to study, deliberate and make decisions. The objective of all the participants would be to find the truth, instead of winning for one side or for the other.

So, you don't want a prosecutor, but you want there to be cops? And, the information from the cops would always be fair and unbiased because cops are well known to have no prejudices and never lie or exaggerate. But, that would all come out from the witnesses, right? Please. Again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding on how real people work in real life. Also, how about instead of a panel of 3 or so people to determine the "truth", we increase that number to 12, and we take ordinary citizens to listen and adjudicate what is fact and what is fiction? Do you think that would work?

Seriously, I don't see how this is any different from a criminal trial with the glaring exception that in your scenario the defendant doesn't really get an advocate.

I'm not going to pick the rest of this apart line by line but I want to jump to something else you brought up: OJ Simpson. Let me ask you a serious question: how do you know he is guilty? You've made the point twice now that he's a murderer who got away with it. Personally, I think he is a murderer who got away with it too, but how do we know? Neither of us was there so how do we know? Well, we look at the evidence, but a panel of 12 people looked at the same evidence and concluded something different than you and I did. Who's to say they were wrong and we were right? Because the state said he was guilty?

Let me throw another name out at you: Richard Jewel. If he's not familiar to you, he was the man who found one of the bombs at the Olympics in Atlanta in 1996. There were other bombs set off and a couple of people were killed. Jewel found one that had not gone off and possibly saved some lives. Unfortunately for him, though, the cops decided that he was actually the bomber. They had an overwhelming case against him and chased him until his health deteriorated. He eventually died a few years later from a heart attack. I'm sure the stress of what he went through contributed to his death, although I can't say that for certain. But, how could it have not?

Oh, the best part of this story? Turns out he was 100% innocent. The iron clad case the Feds had on him turned out to be 100% wrong. But, the evidence put up by the cops, and the witnesses, and the facts presented all pointed to him. Lucky for him, he had a lawyer who was able to show another way to look at the evidence, and was able to demonstrate that the cops case was not as ironclad as it seemed. Sometimes the system does work, and works very well. Jewel's experience probably contributed to his death but he died knowing his reputation was intact. I guess that's worth something to his family.

The point is that, without someone out there looking out for his interests, to challenge the evidence, to challenge the conventional wisdom, to open up the possibility of another explanation, how do you know you will ever get that? What you are describing lends itself to the kind of "group think" I see in the management chain in my corporate job. No one wants to be the guy to say "the emperor has not clothes". No one want to be the lone voice in the wind to say "that's wrong". The great thing about juries is they have no allegiance to each other. They do their civic duty and they go on their way. There is no real hierarchy and repercussions for disagreements. That's why they work, usually. Not always, obviously. Mistakes are made, but what you are describing doesn't do anything, that is obvious to me at least, that lessens the opportunity for mistakes.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
17-10-2011, 10:59 AM
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
Not subject related but Id like to answer BnWs question.

(17-10-2011 10:24 AM)BnW Wrote:  Secondly, you seem to have some kind of issue with people who have more than you. Maybe I'm reading your wrong but that is my take. So, if you're upset that a judge or a solicitor has a bigger house, nicer car, etc. here is my suggestion: go to school to study law, work hard at it, get a job in law, and work hard at that. There is a time tested formula for success: hard work + effort = success. Doing nothing leads to nothing. Somehow we are more and more a society of people who think they are owed something and are entitled to something. I'm all for helping people out who are down on their luck, need a helping hand, etc. But, the idea that you should have what others worked hard for because they have it and you don't is absurd. And, while I may be misreading your comments, that is the sense I'm getting.

You are right to some degree. I havent had the oppurtunities to go to university simply because of my background and the fact that I cant afford it. Yes there are people who struggle through and I suppose I could do the same as well if I put 110% effort in.....im not making excuses its just for somebody like me it is very very hard for me to better myself.

Although if I really did want more money I could go back into sales.....I used to earn huge ridiculous amounts doing that but its souless.

I havent got anything against everybody with more than me.....just the ones that look down upon me for the social situation I am in Dodgy

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 12:04 PM
 
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
(17-10-2011 10:24 AM)BnW Wrote:  I'm not going to pick the rest of this apart line by line

Dittto.

It is just too much work! Rolleyes

I brought up a lot of ideas, presented them in a frame I consider valid.

Of course, you are free to disagree with all of it, I don't mind.

bemore and Peterkin responded with some interesting ideas of their own, let's see if anyone else wants to jump in.

I told you that thinking outside the box was required! Big Grin

OK, guys, have fun!


(17-10-2011 10:59 AM)bemore Wrote:  You are right to some degree. I havent had the oppurtunities to go to university simply because of my background and the fact that I cant afford it. Yes there are people who struggle through and I suppose I could do the same as well if I put 110% effort in.....im not making excuses its just for somebody like me it is very very hard for me to better myself.

bemore, don't let BnW's multiple degrees intimidate you. You are an extremely intelligent young man with keen perception, imagination, original ideas.

Don't EVER apologize for not having had an education -- it is not your fault.

The idea that "hard work + effort = success" is total, condescending bullshit. Angry

It usually reflects the "Blame the Victim" mentality of the privileged (and some of their victims). It is based on the premise that the playing field is level.

The playing field has never been level and it has been stacked against you from the start.

I hate "self-made-man" boasts.

I could go on about it for hours, but I won't.

Suffice to say is that I have a lot more respect for your curiosity, imagination, originality, intelligence and out-of-the-box courage than I have for a string of degrees (I have multiple degrees too and I never found it necessary to brag about them and use them as proof of being right ).

Smile
Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2011, 01:21 PM (This post was last modified: 17-10-2011 09:00 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: The adverserial "Justice" System
(14-10-2011 09:27 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  I have made several visits to court this past month. And I have noticed that your level of "innocence" largely depends on your income and how well the judge knows the lawyer you paid for. The people that chose to represent themselves were greeted with outright incredulous snarls and disrespect. And if you request a public defender, you literally have to fill out a form that determines whether or not you are poor enough to qualify for one.

What kind of shit is that?

I was about to make the exact same post.

Here is the perfect example, 6 mins of complete BS.
"If the glove does not fit, you must acquit."





If you got the $$ you can hire this man, or someone just like him, and he/she can get you off scot-free.


This is the concise version,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1QI4P0Yq...re=related


PS:
Fixing the crime problem in the US is verbally quite simple.
All one has to do is correct the disparity between the rich and the poor, and crime within the US would plummet faster than a scud missile.
But that is not really what they want...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: