[brurdefdoro]

Do away with the judge. So you're in favor of lynch mobs? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking.

[AndreasLV]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Do away with the judge. So you're in favor of lynch mobs? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just asking. No. I'm in favor of a simplified code of laws, one where the punishment fits the crime, and regular people understand what the laws say and mean. Juries would decide guilt or innocence, with smaller panels for minor cases (perhaps 3 people, deciding on a simple majority) that involve no jail time, and a regular jury to decide cases where a prison sentence is at stake. This is just an example.

[valentinesdayyy]

Smaller cases use 6. Check out a Google search on laws in your area, or take a field trip to the city offices and ask. "Hey. What's the penalty for burning rubber in my Lexus at midnight?", or whatever. Setting fire to your neighbor's lawn.

[ecosportpol_ru]

You have your choice. You can ask for a jury trial.

[Efksqhyu]

Ask For A Jury Trial?

[adverwork]

Che pretty much nailed it, but in addition to what he said, who's going to administer the trial without judges? The job still needs to be done, and a judge by another name is no different. Sentencing is already in the hands of the elected legislatures (maximums, mandatory minimums, three strikes and you're out laws, etc.), subject of course to applicable constitutional restrictions. Judges can only exercise what discretion the legislature allows them.

What's your vision for civil courts? Despite Swift's best wishes, short statutes don't stop people from committing torts or keep contract disputes from arising.

[preptarra]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Che pretty much nailed it, but in addition to what he said, who's going to administer the trial without judges? That's fair. I think we need some sort of referee to moderate the trial, but that person should not be on some pedestal wearing robes and being called "Your honor." There's absolutely no reason why we should be forced to treat a government official like they're our noble lord. I don't have to call a firefighter "Your honor," and they're a good deal more useful to society than some corrupt judge.

The job still needs to be done, and a judge by another name is no different. Sentencing is already in the hands of the elected legislatures (maximums, mandatory minimums, three strikes and you're out laws, etc.), subject of course to applicable constitutional restrictions. Judges can only exercise what discretion the legislature allows them. The penalties described by legislatures are out of control. Most laws are so broadly defined and severely punished that the courts are forced to be "merciful" rather than fair. Why? So that you're forced to humiliate yourself before a judge, lest they throw the book at you.

Look at speed limits. Nobody obeys them. Most cops won't pull you over unless you're going at least ten above. So it's less of a limit than a suggestion. And that gives cops who want to be dicks the power to harass just about anybody.

What's your vision for civil courts? Despite Swift's best wishes, short statutes don't stop people from committing torts or keep contract disputes from arising. I've never been in a civil case, so I'll withdraw criticism of the specifics until I know more. I do think that there are obvious abuses that exist (e.g. McDonalds' hot coffee case), but juries seem to be part of the problem there too, rather than a solution.

In any event, reform is pretty clearly needed, and opposed most strenuously by the trial lawyers who profit the most from the current system.

[GoblinGaga]

Che

Simplicity =! clarity. Often it's the other way 'round.

-Arrian

[Illisezek]

Originally posted by Seeker
If you think you've hit on some miraculously simple and rational system you're one heck of a guy, i.e. better than a thousand years of the greatest statesmen, jurists, and legislators that our civilization has produced.

Ain't sayin it's impossible...but.... I don't think I've got all the answers, but I do see something absolutely terrible about a legal system that sends plenty of poor people to death row, only to be exonerated by DNA evidence, while OJ Simpson got away with a double murder.

I don't think every point I made is necessarily valid, but I do think that an 800+ year old legal system needs to be changed for a more modern era. Nothing wrong with wanting to change things, is there?

[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.

[LookSe]

The system we have actually works, precisely because when something truly is out of whack, the system is able to adapt to correct it. It's not instant, but it happens all the time. I'm content with the system not because things are run as well as possible today, but because we have a system that can adapt to today's problems. People (a lot of them lawyers) are constantly thinking about what reform needs to be brought to the system.

Speed limits are unrealistic on what basis? If you mean they're unrealistic in that the police don't have enough manpower to ticket everyone who speeds, I'd have to agree, but setting speed limits based on police manpower doesn't strike me as a particularly good idea, for what should be obvious reasons. If they need to be applicable to every situation, does that mean we set the speed limit at whatever speed we'd allow a man to rush his dying wife to the hospital? If it has to be the same for everybody, do we have to ticket police when they speed to a crime scene or chase a speeding criminal? Higher speed limits won't make things more fair or equal, just faster. Everybody, obvious exceptions aside, runs the same risk of getting a ticket when they speed, and is subject to the same penalty within a given jurisdiction. Where this isn't the case, e.g., racial discrimination by police, we already have mechanisms in the system to deal with it. In other words, the essence of your idea is already built into the system. To the extent that we fail to uphold it now, why wouldn't we fail to uphold it under another system?

[fereupfer]

Originally posted by Solomwi
Speed limits are unrealistic on what basis? On the basis that they are widely ignored. If they were realistic, most people would obey them.

If they need to be applicable to every situation, does that mean we set the speed limit at whatever speed we'd allow a man to rush his dying wife to the hospital? That's a decent point as far as my "punish all violators" bit goes. I'd say that the law should be written to allow certain moving violations during emergencies. There's no reason lawmakers can't formulate laws that work.

If it has to be the same for everybody, do we have to ticket police when they speed to a crime scene or chase a speeding criminal? Obviously this is just a straw man. My argument isn't to prevent emergency responders from doing their jobs. It's to bring the laws into accord with the way life actually works.

Higher speed limits won't make things more fair or equal, just faster. Everybody, obvious exceptions aside, runs the same risk of getting a ticket when they speed, and is subject to the same penalty within a given jurisdiction. I don't know about how things are where you are, but around here, if the sign says 55 mph, the vast majority of people are going at least 60 mph. They do that because the posted speed limit is a polite fiction, one that is almost never enforced.

To the extent that we fail to uphold it now, why wouldn't we fail to uphold it under another system? This is legitimate. If that 55 mph sign I mentioned were changed to 65, people would probably wind up going 70.

I think the problem is in our idea of what government exists to do, and how it should act. I think government should base its laws on the opinions and actions of the people. If the people flagrantly violate a law, abolish the law. You seem to view government as a top down mechanism for controlling large groups of people. I admit that my anarchist tendencies may not be ideal in the modern world, but I think they're a necessary counter-balance to the nanny state.

[clomoll]

You guys seem to enjoy nitpicking details about this and that. That's fine, ideas are improved through criticism. But to those who think the current system is fine, I have this question.

Why should the poor being treated worse than the rich by our legal system? The rich can afford well connected lawyers, while the poor are stuck with a PD who may or may not know how to pronounce their client's name, or recognize him on the street.

If you think that we don't treat people differently, please pm me the contact info for your drug dealer.

[HelenTay]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
You actually wish to correct the basic maxim that the rich are treated differently, no matter the form of government? If you had a ghost of a chance at actually bringing that about, you'd be dead by sunset. The laws are applied in a somewhat haphazard way, but every effort to improve that entails making the relevant law somewhat more complex. Eventually, this accretion of little fixes adds up to a system that requires full-time professionals to interpret. The fact that these same folks (lawyers) make the law as well as interpret it brings us to where we are today.

I raised "trial by combat" only as a way to demonstrate a simple legal system. No, I do not think the current legal system is always either just nor fair, but I am at a loss as to another basic system that is not based on superstition (Sharia law) or on irrelevent factors (trial by combat or trial by fire or dunking, et al). Okay, but we're smart people here, and most are sufficiently narcissistic to believe that we know better than everybody else.

So I guess I'm challenging y'all to come up with something better than innocent men on Death Row, while people like OJ walk away from double murders.

[brurdefdoro]

Originally posted by Felch
On the basis that they are widely ignored. If they were realistic, most people would obey them. You can't actually believe that, can you? People will always try to go a little faster than the legal limit. The smart legislator would purposefully make the limit 5 mph slower than what he wanted, allowing everyone to think they are "pushing it" while actually doing what is safe for the given road. And that doesn't make the laws meaningless, it just makes them effective. It isn't economically possible (without cameras and automated radar guns and such, and even that is a lot of expense) to monitor every road. If you made all limits exactly what you wanted them to be, and relied on enforcement, there would be much speeding and unsafe driving. If you make limits slightly lower than the ideal, and rely on people then driving a little faster than the posted limit, you get what you want at much lower cost.

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. I'm with you in spirit, I really am. If I ever end up in court, even as a witness, I will end up in jail for contempt of court, because I will tell the judge where to stick his gavel if he tries any bull. And I will refer to him or her as "Judge (judge's last name)" and not "your honor" But, this decorum and procedure does serve a purpose. Remember, courts deal with criminals and has a function to fulfill in a limited time. Someone has to be to be in charge, and since it can't be the defendant, and allowing either lawyer to be in control of the court would be unfair to the other side, and the jury isn't versed in the law, it falls to the judge to keep order. While I may disagree with the "your honor" b.s., the rest of the formality is a way of instilling discipline and order on the proceedings.

Also, not the way the rest of society works? Try referring to any of the following in a non-traditional manner: a)your parents b)a teacher (including god forbid one with a PhD) c)your boss d)a customer at your place of work. And there are more. Granted, you may not have to use "your honor" but showing respect to people who have done nothing to deserve it is part and parcel of our society.

Why? Is driving a car on a suspended lisence something so harmful to society that the people who do it need to be locked up? Or is it more likely that this exists so some lawyers can shake the ordinary people down. You need to get a lawyer to prevent the judge from walking all over you, and the judge can walk all over you because the laws are written to give obscene punishments for minor crimes. Dude, you broke the law twice (at least). Once to get your license suspended. Then, you ignored the law and drove anyway. If you don't want judges walking on you and lawyers taking advantage of you, don't break the law twice. This goes to your simple laws you were talking about. A simple law is "Don't drive without a license." Anyone can understand that. It doesn't require a lawyer to decipher that. But you failed to obey anyway. Maybe simple laws won't help after all.

Why not eliminate judges, by perscribing reasonable penalties for crimes? As it stands, you often recieve a sentence that is only a fraction of the maximum penalty. Naturally the penalties can be increased for repeat offenders, but the increases should be in the hands of elected legislatures, not decided at the whims of an appointed judge. Checks and balances. Being elected to legislature is a popularity contest and a part time job (well, you could argue it shouldn't be, and some legislators do work at it full time, but for the most part, part time job). Being a judge involves years of education and being involved with the law day in and day out. I'm quite happy that I get to have a say in who makes the laws, but I'm also happy that someone who has proven he has a brain and who can, in theory, (even if it doesn't always work that way, and it doesn't always work that way) make a decision based on the merits of the case rather than make a decision based on pleasing his constituency is responsible for interpreting those laws.

[DoctorWeryDolt]

[q=Felch]Is driving a car on a suspended lisence something so harmful to society that the people who do it need to be locked up?[/q]

Uh... yeah. You obviously did something to get your license suspended and then you decided to ignore the punishment for your past action and drive anyway?!!

I have no sympathy for you and those who decide to flout the law in such a way may indeed need to be locked up until they learn that the rules apply to them as well.

[echocassidyde]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Uh... yeah. You obviously did something to get your license suspended and then you decided to ignore the punishment for your past action and drive anyway?!!

I have no sympathy for you and those who decide to flout the law in such a way may indeed need to be locked up until they learn that the rules apply to them as well. I got a speeding ticket, and failed to take a required course within thirty days. I was sent a certified letter informing me that my license was suspended, but I wasn't home to sign for it, and after three days the post office got rid of it. In fact, the first time I learned that my license was suspended was when the cop who pulled me over told me. These facts came out in court, and you weren't there. But thanks anyways for your total lack of sympathy. You've proven that you're a douche.

[Cofeeman]

Originally posted by Felch


I got a speeding ticket, and failed to take a required course within thirty days. I was sent a certified letter informing me that my license was suspended, but I wasn't home to sign for it, and after three days the post office got rid of it. In fact, the first time I learned that my license was suspended was when the cop who pulled me over told me. These facts came out in court, and you weren't there. But thanks anyways for your total lack of sympathy. You've proven that you're a douche. Given the sympathy towards others you have demonstrated in other threads I think you are damn lucky the authorities you encountered aren't like you.

However your central point of this thread is valid. Laws are supposed to be an extension of what society finds acceptable, not an imposition on society.

Also, since most legislators used to be lawyers most laws as written so that more lawyers are required to understand them and penalties are often set as to make a political point rather than any basis in harm/benefit to society.

[251EPyso]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you were sent a certified letter, the post office does three attempts and will leave something on your door to tell you to pick up your certified letter. Yeah, that's what happened. And I didn't pick it up. So I deserve a year in prison?

And secondly, you FAILED TO TAKE THE REQUIRED COURSE. What did you think would happen? They'd forget about it and send you on your way? No, I was wrong to do that, and I know it. That's why I plead guilty. It's not a reason for a year in prison.

Seeing as your comments on judges ("God-kings"?) and the law show you as a douche, I don't really care what names you sling at me. Why does it show me to be a douche? I think you're a douche because you want me to go to prison over a non-violent offense. I think that's a fair reason not to like someone. I'm certainly entitled not to like judges, and to desire a reform of laws.

[Pheddytrourry]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Also, you had to take a required course for a speeding ticket? How many other moving violations have you had? It was my first one, but I was on my provisional license. Good question.