Reforming the law

[Felch]

I just had the joy today of spending part of the day in traffic court.

I had a lot of time to think while I was there, and the thing that bothered me the most is this - why do we maintain the medieval tradition of judges and attorneys?

Why are the laws written to be so complicated that an average person needs professional counsel to handle them, and even then is better off leaving the talking to the lawyer?

Why do we allow judges to apply the law unevenly from person to person, with penalties varying from judge to judge, and often ameliorated based on personal relationships with attorneys? Why do we keep this relic that dates back to Henry Plantagenet, and is even more ancient than the Magna Carta?

Why not reform our laws to be simple enough that anybody with a rudimentary education can comprehend them? Shouldn't we be able to understand the laws we are expected to obey?

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.

Jonathan Swift has this to say about the Bromdingnagian code of law.

No Law of that Country must exceed in Words the Number of Letters in their Alphabet, which consists only of two and twenty. But, indeed, few of them extend even to that Length. They are expressed in the most plain and simple Terms, wherein those People are not mercurial enough to discover above one Interpretation: And to write a Comment upon any Law is a capital Crime. As to the Decision of civil Causes, or Proceedings against Criminals, their Precedents are so few, that they have little Reason to boast of any extraordinary Skill in either.

By the way, if any lawyers out there want to speak in defense of our current system, please be up front about how you profit from the current racket.

In case you're curious, I was up for driving on a suspended lisence and got a five hundred dollar fine, to be paid within 10 days. I got that (I believe) because I pissed the judge off.

[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.

[LordShiva]

tld

[Felch]

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.

[Felch]

Originally posted by LordShiva
tld

Top Level Domain? Okay.

[SlowwHand]

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.

[Felch]

I'd rather six of my peers judging me than one stuck up ******* who expects me to stand when he enters the room and gets called "Your honor."

No American, and certainly no Texan, should feel obliged to bow, scrape, stand, or grab ankle to please anybody else. We're a free republic made of free citizens, and its about time we got rid of the last vestiges of that inbred English monarchy.

[SlowwHand]

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

[Theben]

Wasn't this a Judas Priest song?

[SlowwHand]

Ask For A Jury Trial?

[chequita guevara]

Simplified code isn't really any simpler. Reality is so complex that a simpler law will fail to take account of the myriad situations that arise. This means that judges will be forced to make more individual decisions, which means that justice will not be consistently applied.

[Solomwi]

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.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Simplified code isn't really any simpler. Reality is so complex that a simpler law will fail to take account of the myriad situations that arise. This means that judges will be forced to make more individual decisions, which means that justice will not be consistently applied.

What do the myriad situations matter? Some people are guilty, others are not, the law should be consistent for anybody who is guilty. Extenuating circumstances are just an excuse for rich people who can afford good lawyers to get away with only a slap on the wrist.

As it stands, for example, I faced a $1,000 fine, and up to a year in prison.

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.

While I was in court, I saw a doctor with a nice fancy lawyer get off from his DUI with only probation, some classes and a small fine. Why does having a lawyer make him less of a threat to society than someone who doesn't have a lawyer?

[Felch]

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.

[Seeker]

Err...remember a little thing we had a while back called the 'French Revolution' and 'the Enlightenment'?

You know lets rationalize everything?

Napoleon tried with the legal system. The Civil Code was supposed to modernize the old system of precedent and judgement.

Of course, like Che already pointed out reality is ****ing complicated, especially when you have numbers of parties disputing the exact sequence, significance, veracity, and implications of series of events taking place in the past with multiple often apparently contradictory lines of evidence, and doing this disputation using every once of their financial and intellectual capacity.

'Simple' codes inevitably result in bizarre, unfair, and inapplicable situations because life is just one big 'grey area'. They grow and grow and become tangled, and interjurisdictional, and obsolete, and and...

The common law system is still around not because we haven't tried a whole bunch of alternatives (civil codes, military tribunals, 'people's courts', etc) but because it's 'what works'.

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....