[BodoidearoLew]

Originally posted by Solomwi
There are plenty of reasons the formalities of court are a good idea, but none of them ring true when you're just been hit for a $500 fine. Just remember what the qualifications for referee would be: well-versed in rules of procedure and evidence, and available to start immediately. I admit I'd probably not care if I hadn't been hammered by the fine. It's natural for people to behave selfishly. But I don't like the idea of the formality, or the absolute power that judges hold over their court rooms. It's contrary to the way that the rest of society works, and I haven't been convinced that there is a benefit.

Let me get this straight. Courts are forced to be merciful because the legislature does such a bad job outlining sentences, yet sentencing rules should be in the legislature's control (what I took your OP to mean; surely you weren't suggesting that increases in particular cases should be determined by the legislature) and the court is merciful just so the judge can get his jollies watching you humiliate yourself? Surely you see the contradictions here. Well, that is a contradiction yes, and you are right that I don't want the legislature involved in individual cases. I think of this more as a long term issue, one where the current system needs reform, and people need to get thinking. If you're content with how things are run, I respect that. I am not content.

Your complaint about speed limits goes to law enforcement, not the legal system. Donegeal might give you a better answer, but I don't see why a different system for prosecuting speeders would necessarily lead to more uniform enforcement of speed limits.

Speed limits are about as simple a code as you can get. "Don't go over X speed, or you are subject to Y fine." Yet, in keeping with Che's comment, reality intrudes and keeps the practice from being as simple as "Take Y dollars from everyone who exceeds X speed." Whether the cops can stop and harass you, by the way, remains in your hands. Just don't speed. Speed limits are an example of the problem. They're set unrealistically low, to the point where only flagrant violation is punished. Laws should be appropriate for all situations, not some ad hoc system. In other words, when you commit a crime, there shouldn't be any wiggle room.

I would, if I had my way, raise speed limits, and then strictly enforce those new limits. The law must be realistic, and it must be fair, and it must be the same for everybody. That's the essence of my idea here.

Careful. It was tort reform that allowed California burglars who injured themselves breaking into a house to sue the homeowner and, for that matter, that allowed Stella Liebeck to recover from McDonald's at all. As for that case, it's not an obvious abuse. It's just easily boiled into an outrageous soundbite once you leave some pertinent details (like the fact that she suffered third-degree burns and tried to settle for $20,000). There are plenty of abuses in the system, but the question is whether the system minimizes abuses compared to the next best possible system, not whether it is completely free from them. I agree that bad reform is worse than no reform. That doesn't mean we should be content with the way things are. It means that we need to put more effort and energy in making a better system - one that actually works.

Like Seeker said, the common law system is the product of the cream rising to the top over several hundred years. Inefficient rules, or those made on the whim of a judge, are weeded out and the system does a pretty good job of developing and sustaining itself. But, again, I understand that all of that sounds pretty hollow when the sting of that $500 vanishing into thin air is still fresh. Pretty good is fine. But I still hope for better. My ideas may be bad, and they're almost certainly insane, but the mainstream of today would have been crazy back in Henry II's time.