[telewinz]

NOT an anti-lawyer thread.

Why do we need lawyers to defend us? The LAW is a fixture, a person either committed an illegal activity or he/she did not. An educated (in federal or state law) 3 judge panel should be abe to determine if a crime was committed, the proper defense, the unusual circumstances of each case (if any), fact from opinion, guilt or innocence, a just verdict, and sentence (if any).

A lawyer as often as not screws things up by poor research and a poor effort caused by the attorney's inexperience or a lack of money on the part of the defendant. Rich defendants on the other hand have often gotten off with no other damage except to their checking account. How often have judges sentenced a person simply because of a lawyer's poor defense or set a guilty person free because the courtroom was turned into a circus by the high paid lawyers or the prosecutor was only an average law student at a 2nd rate law school?

Just thing how stream-lined our justice system would become if we did away with courtroom lawyers? We would save millions of dollars now wasted on defense and prosecuting lawyers and their support staff. Just think, the average man would almost be equal to a rich man in the eyes of the law. Isn't that what was intended 200 years ago?

[WYO]

So you're advocating abolishing the current adversary system and the jury system with a 3 judge inquisition system? That sounds much worse than what we already have.

[Pilgrim]

Why do we need lawyers to defend us? The LAW is a fixture, a person either committed an illegal activity or he/she did not. An educated (in federal or state law) 3 judge panel should be abe to determine if a crime was committed, the proper defense, the unusual circumstances of each case (if any), fact from opinion, guilt or innocence, a just verdict, and sentence (if any).

I think the antics of the three judge panels of the Ninth 'Circus' Court of Appeals should be answer enough to your question. Turning the decision of guilt or innocence over to the judges would institutionalize justice and gradually evolve into a system of rubber stamp justice you and I would not be happy with. We already have enough of these decisions where people who use lawfully use a firearm to defend their lives and the lives of their families are punished because the firearm wasn't licensed or permitted by the political systems in power.

Without a jury system Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris would be rotting in prison for the murder of a deputy U.S. marshal.

I think before you advocate streamlining the criminal justice system, consider if you want those 'improvements' implemented if you are accused of a crime you didn't commit, or of a crime you were forced to commit to preserve your life or the lives of your family members. Would you have the resources while sitting in your jail cell to interview witnesses, examine evidence, talk to experts in the field, and prepare your defense so that you don't make critical mistakes prejudicial to your case in front of a three judge panel of 'experts' on crime and criminal justice procedure?

The conviction rate of most prosecutors is in the 90+% range. Do you want to risk your life and welfare going up against experts in the field of putting people in jail? Oh, did you really think that by doing away with defense attorneys the government would hire amateurs to prosecute you just to be fair?

Our jury system dates back to the Magna Carta in the early thirteenth century to correct abuses caused by a justice system that was in essence owned by the King. Don't be a hurry to reinstitute such a system.

Pilgrim

[Sarge]

judges come from?

[telewinz]

Our jury system dates back to the Magna Carta in the early thirteenth century to correct abuses caused by a justice system that was in essence owned by the King.

Small pox predates the Magna Carta, does that mean its OK? A panel of judges would have a very good chance of working out better than our present system with its PROVEN poor performance. Again, why do I need a lawyer to present the facts and circumstances? Who said no jury? I'm just saying no dead weight (lawyers).

The Federal Constitution was written as you know over 200 years ago. Something is wrong if I can CCW in Texas but go to prison in New York for doing the same thing. I didn't know freedom or rights were a regional thing that comes in different flavors. I guess you pick YOUR freedoms then move to that region of the country. Is that what our founding fathers had in mind? Yet that is the World we live in today.:barf:

[Dashunde]

Well... I think he has a few good points, particularly relating to a trial lawyer's ability to research and apply case history effectively.

It's been long known that our system falls bias towards money, but I for one, am happy to take my chances with the way things are. After all, most of us "average" American's do have an equal shot at fairness.

[telewinz]

Its matter of supply and demand, its easier to find a few educated, honest judges than it is to find alot of educated, honest lawyers.

[Waitone]

I am no big fan of what passes for the judicial system now days. It is however a sight better than what is in second place. What we have now has rather large warts on it face. Two of those warts are overreaching, overbearing, and unaccountable judges (at all levels) and attorneys who are interested in mining the system. Not all judges and attorneys qualify for my blast, just a few, but the damage and destruction they cause is profound.

That said I'm really happy with the jury system. Fact is I'd like it to expanded to say 15 to 18 jurors and I'd like to see every charge to a jury to include a section on Jury Nullification. The jury in our society is an incredibly powerful institution and I surely would not want to reduce it by handing its function over to a panel of overreaching, overbearing, and unaccountable judges.

We have societal trouble headed our way due to the de-industrialization of the US, the ruling classes' dismissive attitude toward illegal immigration, and land and water use regulations. I will add to the list a future revolt against the power our courts have. That particular rebellion take one step closer every time a judge issues a ruling attacking Americans or America.

[Cal4D4]

Go thru the two stages of small claims court some time as a primer on the judicial system. I doubt if you would ever suggest trial by judicial panel again. There is nothing in our legal system more arbitrary and capricious than the actions and opinions of a judge.

[El Tejon]

I believe they have this in the People's Republic of China. A panel of judges implements the law (the dictates of the CCP) and then a fair trial occurs.

tele, I'm confused. Please clarify your desire for me. You want the European/Chinese model of the judge (or panel of judges) as prosecution and trier of fact? Is there a jury or not? Who represents the State? Who represents the accused?

If no jury, what about the BoR? If no counsel for defendant, what about the BoR? How about the subsequent fallout, right to remain silent? separation of functions? Right to procedural due process? Right to cross examination?

It was never intended that everyone be equal. Only that due process be the same for all. Everyone has the right to self-defense, however it is inherently unequal as those that possess the means of self-defense and train continually are far more ready to exercise their rights. Same with Problem #2.

[mantispid]

All you really need to do to 'repair' a lot of the judicial system is to make Juries completely random. No selection allowed. If some jurors are biased, so be it.. they're part of the population. Bias is perfectly acceptable when it comes to representing a cross-section of the community.

Just make it so that if there are 3 hung juries in a row, it's an automatic acquittal.

I started a thread on the true power of a jury (when not stacked like they are these days). The link is here. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50429)

Another solution is to eliminate the Bar. Well, eliminate it as a requirement to practicing law. That would open up the field of legal counsel to competition, and would likely greatly improve quality and decrease price. Since passing the Bar is currently required by law, it creates a type of monopoly. Monopolies by government = bad.


An additional, more radical alternative, is to completely eliminate the criminal justice system, and instead handle everything through civil courts. In addition, create private work prisons that the convicted can select between. When the convict pays off the 'debt' to the victim (determined by judge or jury), the convict goes free and his rights restored. If the convict commits a major crime like murder, he's sentenced to a ridiculously high monetary amount, so never goes free. 90% of proceeds generated by the convict go to the victim or the victim's survivors. This is the system advocated by John Hasnas (http://mason.gmu.edu/~jhasnas/), Law Professor at George Mason University, and by Dr. Mary J. Ruwart (http://www.ruwart.com). Interestingly enough they came to the same conclusion independently.

[TheeBadOne]

The legal system is a playground built by lawyers. "Build it and they will come". It's so complex that you need to hire a lawyer to do anything in it. That's why you have a country where the lawyer out number the doctors 10 to 1.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I think what telewiz is getting at is that the system of LAWS is so complicated that lawyers can not always competently defend. There are so many convoluted, conflicting and confusing laws.

Moreover, should not the law be such that the average man can understand it? Telewiz is stating the the system of laws should be basic enough for the average guy to defend himself without reliance on unknown quantities (incompetent lawyers). There are two faults with this argument: 1) Average Joe does not want to know the law or 2) the laws are so complex that even the lawyers do not understand them.

Further, how can the average man stay within the law if it is not understood? Case: Look at the AWB and attendent Exec Orders. How many questions cross this forum concerning what is and is not legal? Is the intent to make the average guy afraid of owning potentially outlawed firearms? I think so.

El T is right. Only due process is guaranteed. Like everything else, more money buys a more favorable outcome (some can afford a lorcin, and some can afford a real gun).

Juries? Absolutely. Inquisition panels? I think not.

Having blanket federal laws are scary. Competiition among the states promotes freedom. I get warm fuzzies regarding federal CCW, but then get cold thinking of federal gun-free zones, or federal assault weapon bans:banghead:

[Baba Louie]

The entire section below taken from:

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1520.htm

Trial by Jury

Trial by jury is another constitutional protection for the rights of the people. By assuring that the people themselves participate in the judicial process, governing authorities are prevented from unjustly prosecuting individuals. Trial by jury assumes that the people themselves are the best guardians of their own rights, and that they will release from custody any person unjustly charged. It also allows the people to make unjust laws of no effect with their power of jury nullification.
"I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269

"[The people] are not qualified to judge questions of law, but they are very capable of judging question of fact. In the form of juries, therefore, they determine all controverted matters of fact, leaving thus as little as possible, merely the law of the case, to the decision of the judges." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:422, Papers 15:283

"With us, the people (by which is meant the mass of individuals composing the society), being competent to judge of the facts occurring in ordinary life, they have retained the functions of judges of facts under the name of jurors." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:488

"The following [addition to the Bill of Rights] would have pleased me:... All facts put in issue before any judicature shall be tried by jury except, 1, in cases of admiralty jurisdiction wherein a foreigner shall be interested; 2, in cases cognizable before a court martial concerning only the regular officers and soldiers of the United States or members of the militia in actual service in time of war or insurrection; and, 3, in impeachments allowed by the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson James Madison, 1789. ME 7:450, Papers 15:367

"It will be worthy [of] consideration whether the protection of the inestimable institution of juries has been extended to all the cases involving the security of our persons and property. Their impartial selection also being essential to their value, we ought further to consider whether that is sufficiently secured in those States where they are named by a marshall depending on Executive will, or designated by the court or by officers dependent on them." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:338


Jury Nullification
"It is left... to the juries, if they think the permanent judges are under any bias whatever in any cause, to take on themselves to judge the law as well as the fact. They never exercise this power but when they suspect partiality in the judges; and by the exercise of this power they have been the firmest bulwarks of English liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283

"If the question before [the magistrates] be a question of law only, they decide on it themselves: but if it be of fact, or of fact and law combined, it must be referred to a jury. In the latter case of a combination of law and fact, it is usual for the jurors to decide the fact and to refer the law arising on it to the decision of the judges. But this division of the subject lies with their discretion only. And if the question relate to any point of public liberty, or if it be one of those in which the judges may be suspected of bias, the jury undertake to decide both law and fact. If they be mistaken, a decision against right which is casual only is less dangerous to the state and less afflicting to the loser than one which makes part of a regular and uniform system." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIV, 1782. ME 2:179

"The juries [are] our judges of all fact, and of law when they choose it." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:35

"We all know that permanent judges acquire an esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party, by a devotion to the executive or legislative; that it is better to leave a cause to the decision of cross and pile than to that of a judge biased to one side; and that the opinion of twelve honest jurymen gives still a better hope of right than cross and pile does." --Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Arnoux, 1789. ME 7:423, Papers 15:283


sigh... eeerggh

Unfortunately, we've strayed too far from the Path set out by wise minds...
But what do I know?

Adios

[El Tejon]

I think 7.62 has it. I believe the blind hatred, jealousy, and bitterness that is manifested at lawyers [O.K., O.K. unless it is anger at me, usually by the young and nubile] is really a demonstration of frustration at the sheer volume of the law. Law for this, law for that, but little justice. More laws, less justice.

When I was a LEO and all this was orchard, my office was next door to a guy who had been at the office since 1978. My state issues mini-versions of the criminal code, the PAs give them to the coppers.

This guy had every edition sitting on a book shelf from '78 to the new '96 (this was in 1995). The editions got thicker and thicker with more and more laws. And every time you turn around someone is bleating "we need a law."

No we don't. We need self-control.

[M67]

El T. You want the European/Chinese model There is a European model?

In my country we had jury trials several hundred years before the Magna Carta. It worked a bit differently back then, there was no public prosecutor and no judge, just one person bringing a case against another. Each party nominated six jurors and these twelve had the opportunity to consult a "law sayer", someone who knew the law and could cite previous cases, as most of the law at the time was based on precedence. The jury then came to an agreement. The accused was not even required to show up, really - except that anyone who didn't show, lost the case by default...

All this is irrelevant of course, as people in those days believed in concepts that do not seem to be very popular nowadays, like honesty and such...

Today we have a jury system like yours with some differences. If the verdict is guilty, some of the jurors (I think three or four) are drawn by lot to join the judge(s) to decide the sentence. This is a fairly new thing but as far as I know it works well.

In addition we have a system with lay judges instead of a traditional jury, I don't know what to call it in English. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly when this system is used instead of a "regular" jury trial. Anyway, it can either consist of one professional judge and two lay judges or two professionals and three jurors. In either case the "mere mortals" outvote the judge(s), although the latter can call for a re-trial if they think that the majority have misinterpreted the law or made some other procedural mistake.

In both cases there are of course courtroom lawyers, both prosecution and defence.

Some people want to abolish the "traditional" jury in favour of the other system I described. Those lay judges are picked the same way as jurors so the aspect of being tried by your peers is still present. The main difference is that a traditional jury does not explain what they have discussed during deliberation or why they have reached a certain decision. So if a bunch of complete morons have reached a decision based on nothing but misunderstandings, no one outside the jury will ever know. In the other system the "jurors" serve as judges and all decisions, regarding both verdict and sentencing, are explained in detail in writing, so it is possible for others, as for example the defence counsel or the press, to review the decision-making.

I don't really have that much of an opinion in the matter myself, I don't know enough about the whole thing to feel strongly one way or the other.

My point, if I have one, is that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

El Tejon, just saw your last post as I was submitting this.
"And every time you turn around someone is bleating "we need a law." No we don't. We need self-control."
You know, you would make a lousy politician. And that's a compliment, in case you didn't get it. :)

[El Tejon]

M67, yes, it's European. Obviously not Norge or Ingerish, but continental.

Lousy politician? You bet (Ooooh, shake hands and kiss babies--I thought they said babes as in attractive young females). Last election in '98 brought only 11%. See what '06 brings.:D

[telewinz]

Having served on a jury and doing a complete 180 turn due to my experience, I have a GREAT amount of faith in our jury system. Problem is the jury is not informed of their power, in practice they are the "employees" of the judge and trial lawyers. Keep the jury, educate them on their real duties and replace the lawyers with a 3 judge panel that applies the law regardless of the defendent's wealth or lack thereof. Because this system is used in China or any other country should not be viewed as a strike against this "system". The rich are afraid of a real justice system, how else could they use their "hard earned" wealth to their advantage? Why its un-American:uhoh: M67's observations seem to indicate there is some worth to this idea.

[Waitone]

We have tee shirts saying "Molon Labe."

Any demand out there for a tee shirt emblazoned with "Ask Me About Jury Nullification !"

Wonder what would happen to the jury pool.

[telewinz]

If our legal system is "fair", who here believes M. Jackson will serve time in prison IF he's guilty. Gee, I wonder what M. Jackson could have that would sway our justice system to his advantage? Maybe he'd sing a song, yea that must be it.:rolleyes:

[El Tejon]

tel, so the judges are the prosecutor and the defense attorney? How then is evidence presented? How is cross examination handled?

What about the due process right of impartiality??? Right of confrontation??? Right to counsel???

Why must we destroy the BoR?:confused:

If "the rich" are somehow exertiing undue influence over the criminal justice system now, how would your reform change that? Why and how is your reform "real" criminal justice?

Using your own Michael Jackson example, sentencing, if convicted, is up to the court. How would your "reform" change anything at all.

[telewinz]

The judges (3) ask the questions, decide on the best defense, determine what is factural evidence and what is not. They are neither for or against the defendant, they just insure due process and a higher degree of fairness. They would not be rewarded by the number or convictions they generate. We just get rid of the middle man, the trial lawyers. The police still investigate and the jury still determines guilt. The judges can be elected or appointed, either method has its advantages, either side can pick and choose to sit a jury and a panel of judges (within reason). The judges would have paralegal clerks to do the research and such for them just like a well heeled attorney. What addition fears could you have that don't already exist? The idea is to eliminate/reduce the undo influence (wealth) and uneven talent ([edited by moderator for bypassing word filter]) that has always plagued our legal system.

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

:scrutiny: :confused: :rolleyes: :what:

[telewinz]

:o :o :confused: :confused: :confused: :neener:

[hammer4nc]

The idea is to eliminate/reduce the undo influence (wealth) and uneven talent (shi-tty lawyer) that has always plagued our legal system.

Big problem: presumably, these "judges" receive their paycheck from the state. Already a built-in conflict of interest, as they would be deciding crucial matters in "The State vs. John Doe".

Another problem: the workload for these judges (and staff) would determine how much time could be spent on each case. Just look at the disasters that have been made of State Child Protective programs in just about every state. Those programs have a "professional case worker" scenario, similar to what you propose. It sounds good at the outset, only their work load is so severe they're lucky to spend 15 minutes a month on any but the most outrageous cases. They falsify reports of home visits to meet quotas. Kids wind up dead for months or years, before the system even is aware of it!

While the current system has many flaws, your proposal might guarantee equal representation...only problem, it may well be equally sh-tty for erevyone.

[El Tejon]

tel, so the judges are the prosecutors, the defense attorneys and the judges?:what: How can you advocate for the defendant, yet prosecute him? How can you determine what the "best defense" is, if you are the same guy prosecuting him? How does one maintain a "higher degree of fairness" when your system is so rife with conflict of interest?

Anyone else reminded of that skit on "In Living Colour" about the West Indian immigrants? The one about the guy going to court? "Lazy man, only got one job."

So, even though this is not a lawyer-bashing thread, you trash the BoRs to give power to three lawyers (the judges) in the courtroom? So you whine and cry about unethical lawyers, but you propose an inherently unethical reform so rife with conflicts of interests and denial of due process that it could only exist in a law school exam? You hate "lawyers" so much that you would destroy our own protections against the government and give three (3) government lawyers even more power, but this is not a lawyer-bashing thread.

[El Tejon]

Oh, I forgot, tel. If the Tres Juezes are representing the Defendant, how does one maintain the ethics of confidentiality as the three judges also represent the prosecution?:confused:

This must be a concern for you since you cry out for ethics, right?

Oh, yeah, who pays the judges? Can you hire your own panel? How about the ethical problems and conflicts of interest of that?

[telewinz]

They administer justice via the law. There is no pro or con, a fair trial with due process is there only goal. They would hear evidence just as they do now only the evidence would be admitted by everyone except the paid spokespersons, the lawyers. The jury will decide guilt or innocence as they do now.

how does one maintain the ethics of confidentiality as the three judges also represent the prosecution?

What confidentiality? The judges rule on evidence not secrets, I've Got a Secret is a gameshow, it doesn't work well in a court of law.

How can you determine what the "best defense" is, if you are the same guy prosecuting him? How does one maintain a "higher degree of fairness"

What conflict? they are there to achieve justice via evidence, not to defeat their "enemy" or make points.

Big problem: presumably, these "judges" receive their paycheck from the state. Already a built-in conflict of interest, as they would be deciding crucial matters in "The State vs. John Doe".

And how is it any different now and hasn't that been one of the duties of government for several thousand years? Since when is a fair trial considered impossible just because we don't involve lawyers? I don't see the connection.

Another problem: the workload for these judges (and staff) would determine how much time could be spent on each case.

Again, how would that be different (if true) than our present system?

[M67]

telewinz, M67's observations seem to indicate there is some worth to this idea If you mean the idea that we can do without lawyers, that's not what I meant. I just made an observation about the jury system with possible variations. The judge/jury panel I described still hears evidence and arguments from prosecution and defence lawyers.

Although I'm not too crazy about lawyers who think the law is there for the sole purpose of filling their wallets, I don't think we can abolish them.

If we take away the right to freely choose your defence counsel, I think we're in deep poopoo. If good lawyers do a better job than crappy lawyers, that's too bad.

Of course there are some important differences between my country and yours. Over here there are enough good lawyers to go around. You can choose any defence counsel you want and he or she will be appointed to you by the court. They can't refuse unless they have some special reason the court will accept. The lawyer is also paid by the court, no difference between rich and poor. Maybe we just don't have enough crime to make it possible for a lawyer to specialize in rich clients, I don't know. BTW, those lawyers are not on a "government payroll", they operate as private businesses, just that in criminal cases (not civil cases, lawsuits and such) they send their bill to the court, not to the client. I don't really expect y'all to understand the difference, but in this country it actually works... The real problem is, as El Tejon pointed out, that there are way, way too many stoopid laws.

[telewinz]

Its still a valid idea:D :neener: The stupid laws aren't going anywhere.

[El Tejon]

tel, the team of lawyer judges who serve as prosecutors/defense attorneys meet with the defendant to prepare his defense, right? How do you keep the prosecution from knowing what's going on or the secrets of the client? It's inherently unethical not to keep the confidences of your client. Why are you throwing ethics out the window?

What conflict? You're kidding, right. You have set up a system inherently unethical in that the person representing you is also prosecuting you.

You still have not addressed why you would destroy the provisions of the BoRs that recognize certain rights to person confused of crimes. Why destroy them?

[p35]

In my experience as a courtroom lawyer, judges get jaded pretty fast by hearing the same kinds of cases day in and day out. If you're wrongly accused of DUI, for example, do you want to have your case heard by a panel of citizens who are taking a fresh look or a judge who hears 50 DUI defendants a week make the same excuse? I work in juvenile court a lot, where there are no jury trials. It's almost a given that the judge will convict if it goes to trial. Believe me, you get a lot fairer hearing from a jury.

As far as eliminating the Bar, I've seen what happens when people try to practice law with no training, and it ain't pretty. The only barrier to joining the Bar is getting the training and passing the Bar Exam, which at least shows you have a basic level of knowledge and skills. How is that unfair?

[p35]

BTW, ever hear of Andrew Luster? Inherited most of the Max Factor fortune. He's serving something like 140 years in the California prison system for drugging women and then raping them. Of course, the fact that he did it on videotape didn't help him, nor did his decision to run to Mexico in the middle of his trial. Every case is different, but bottomless pockets and good lawyers didn't save him from a solid prosecution case.

[telewinz]

In my experience as a courtroom lawyer, judges get jaded pretty fast by hearing the same kinds of cases day in and day out. If you're wrongly accused of DUI, for example, do you want to have your case heard by a panel of citizens who are taking a fresh look or a judge who hears 50 DUI defendants a week make the same excuse?

We would still have a jury that would decide guilt or innocence, the 3 judge panel (I'll say it again) would insure a fair trial and due process. The judges would not be awarded by the number of convictions as prosecutors are. Do we want justice for all or a "trapdoor" to allow the rich to by-pass justice? A lawyer presents a case and guards his clients rights, all of which can be performed by an impartial panel of judges.

Like a good teacher that doesn't set-out to fail students but to teach, a good judge sets out to abtain justice, not to fill our prisons.

[El Tejon]

tel, where pray tell are prosecutors in the United States paid for convictions? I, and the Supreme Court, want to know now!

So the judges are the prosecutors and the defense attorneys? Why is such an unconstitutional and unethical situation acceptable to you?

You still have failed to explain why you are so ready to scrap the BoR in the name of reform.

[retiredsgt]

Gentlemen: After 32 years in a Big City Police Dept.,
I can tell you that the obvious answer is, as Shakespeare
stated,"First, we kill all of the Lawyers". Also, keep in
mind that a Judge is just another Slimy Attorney in
a Robe.
You can say all you want to about how our "System" may
be working, but HEY---It ain't a system.
The Flaunted Criminal Justice System does not dispense
Justice to Criminals and it AIN"T WORKING!!!!!
Go to any medium to large city and sit in on several criminal
trials. You will hear any number of reasons why the
guilty party did what he did.
It should be of little or no consequence that his forebearers
were brought here in chains, or were escaping from a potatoe famine.
What matters is that he committed a crime and has been found guilty.
An easy fix would be to make Lawyers and Judges personally, and civilly responsible for any crimes a defendant may committ after he is let off on a not-guilty or low jail time sentence.But of course, our lawyer friends will say that is not possible. But they are destroying our society with their greed that forces them to do anything for their clients, for money.:cool:

[buzz_knox]

I can tell you that the obvious answer is, as Shakespeare stated,"First, we kill all of the Lawyers".

You do realize that this quotation comes when Shakespeare is explaining how to create a totalitarian state, not a paradise?

The adversarial system sucks but it is the best one we have or can have until reliable and completely telepaths are somehow discovered.

An easy fix would be to make Lawyers and Judges personally, and civilly responsible for any crimes a defendant may committ after he is let off on a not-guilty or low jail time sentence.But of course, our lawyer friends will say that is not possible. But they are destroying our society with their greed that forces them to do anything for their clients, for money.

Good idea. Let's also make cops civilly and criminally responsible whenever a crook gets off for bad police work and commits another crime. Better yet, let's make cops liable if they don't catch the crook and the crimes continue.

You want to bust a lawyer or judge for screwing up or committing an illegal action, fine. You want to take them all down because the system has been bloated from the consequences of an entire society that has become decadent and corrupt from a "me first, me only" "I'm a victim" attitudes, forget it.

[El Tejon]

retiredsgt., hmmm, those awful juries, letting criminal go. How dare they! Maybe time to abolish the right to a jury?

And the time involved in due process. Geez. Summary executions would certainly speed things up.:p

[dustind]

Look at how well the nine judges on the supreme court are doing...

[ksnecktieman]

I think we need our judges to be responsible. If the judge is responsible we do not need lawyers. The reason we need lawyers today is because of all the ways they can create legal confusion, or keep evidence from being given to a jury. If a prosecutor tries to put illegal evidence (maybe from illegal search?) into court the judge should have the responsibility to stop it. Requiring a lawyer to tell the judge it is illegal should not be needed. In my opinion the judge should be there to see justice done, not to convict everyone.

In a perfect world an innocent man should have no fear of facing a judge and jury without a lawyer, because the judge would fairly enforce the rules of evidence, and the jury would judge not only the facts, but the fairness of the law as well. The goal is justice, not conviction.

I do not think a prosecutor should be allowed to plea bargain a case from a major offense to a minor one. The fear of conviction for a major offense will cause many innocent persons to accept injustice, and no punishment, rather than take a chance on justice being done.

[telewinz]

tel, where pray tell are prosecutors in the United States paid for convictions? I, and the Supreme Court, want to know now!

I believe there is an old age tradition saying successful prosecutors often use their office for a political stepping stone. Dewey comes to mind real quick. Now you and the Supreme Court know (they already did).

I do not think a prosecutor should be allowed to plea bargain a case from a major offense to a minor one.

90% of all civil cases never make it to court. I work in a correctional facility, most of the inmates got where they are by plea bargaining. Otherwise our court system would bog-down real quick, most had public defenders.

The adversarial system sucks but it is the best one we have or can have until reliable and completely telepaths are somehow discovered.

I agree it sucks but there are better systems in force that don't rely on telepaths or a checking account.

An easy fix would be to make Lawyers and Judges personally, and civilly responsible for any crimes a defendant may committ after he is let off on a not-guilty or low jail time sentence.But of course, our lawyer friends will say that is not possible. But they are destroying our society with their greed that forces them to do anything for their clients, for money.

Our jails and prisons are already stuffed with inmates, there is a 15 month plus backlog of inmates in jails waiting for vacant cells in the state prisons. We already house double the number of inmates it was built to handle and projections continue to perdict that the problem will only get much worst. This in a state that has one of the LOWEST crime rates in the country.

Here's a STORY for you; (What If) I was told that an inmate would not lose his good time for threatening to "visit me" (or anyone) after he is released very, very soon. They have to create space and HAVE TO get rid of these inmates unless they at least assault/rape someone or worse. Thank God this is just a story huh:uhoh: I'd be hurting other wise since I can't CCW.:fire:

[p35]

Ya know, Marx came up with a plan for an ideal economic system where everyone worked for the common good without seeking personal gain. The dirty capitalists just kept on working for themselves. Which system is still working?

The current justice system isn't always pretty. Neither is capitalism or democracy. What all 3 have in common is that they work better than any other system that's been tried.

[telewinz]

The current justice system isn't always pretty. Neither is capitalism or democracy. What all 3 have in common is that they work better than any other system that's been tried

Who said that? A lawyer, capitalist and a politician ? Aren't they a little bias?

[El Tejon]

tel, so, prosecutors aren't paid for their convictions!:p Oops, back to the drawing board.:D

[buzz_knox]

Who said that? A lawyer, capitalist and a politician ? Aren't they a little bias?

Aren't you? You work in a correctional facility and I'm sure, have become biased by what you see as the evils of the system. Yet that bias apparently isn't apparent to you, nor does it seem to matter to you.

What you fail to understand is that your system has been tried before. Only in a few places has it actually worked. Would you like to know the reason it worked? Simple: lawyers were still representing the accused even when the judges were asking the questions. In those areas where the judges alone asked the questions, gross injustices were the rule, not the exception.

[tcsd1236]

Obviously you guys have missed the various trials lately where Defendants try to represent themselves, with disasterous results for the Defendant. The legal system is complex......but I am not so sure that I could support a legal system that was "dumbed down" to the level of the average person.There are too many fine points of law and multiple layers of issues when dealing with complex cases that would fall through the cracks of a "dumbed down" legal system. Life is complex, and the reason you have a complex legal system is because people will go to court over every little aspect of daily life.....all that litigation results in a collection of case law and precendence that the average person simply wont understand.

[MrAcheson]

With all due respect, to date I have heard very few people say that the US Justice System works well. To date all those people have been lawyers. Funny coincidence no?

The Justice System definitely has its problems like:

(1) The law is based as much on precidence as the written word. This means that you don't know the law until you've read the casework, because precidence can alter its meaning 180 degrees if the lawyers and judges want it to. This creates a huge barrier to a layman's understanding of the law. It is my understanding that Louisianna's Napoleonic Code doesn't have this problem because its based on the french legal system not the english.

(2) Lawyers must be ethical for the system to work properly. The bar system is supposed to hear complaints against lawyers and censure or disbar those who are found to be unethical. However because lawyers judge between lawyers and non-lawyers, in practice this system is a rubber "innocent" stamp. Its bad enough that local and state governments are threatening to get involved. Perhaps involving a jury in an ethics hearing might be a good idea?

(3) Juries selection is highly influenced by (2) because lawyers don't seek to build unbiased juries anymore. Educating a jury is also a serious issue in many cases. Many issues are complex enough that the jury has to rely on expert testimony. The problem then becomes which experts to believe. This then results in juries taking the sides of the most convincing and charismatic rather than the guy who knows something.

[Cosmoline]

"They are neither for or against the defendant, they just insure due process and a higher degree of fairness. "

Problem is, one of the key guarantees to due process is having JURORS decide facts. Lord help us if the judges do it. Another right is the right to cross examination, which would be all but moot if lay people were forced to try their hand at it unaided by counsel.

I'm no fan of the system, but juries are one of the few things that do work. They do get it wrong sometimes, but in general the process of voir dire and the adversarial system are the best way to determine the truth. If I'm up on felony charges, I would demand my right to be tried by my peers. I'm not sure what the big problem with that is.

[Derek Zeanah]

but in general the process of voir dire and the adversarial system are the best way to determine the truth.Uhhh. I'd think doing away with voir dire would be the best way to get the judicial system back on track. "A jury of your peers? Sure -- next 15 people, you're assigned to this one..." None of this "let's eliminate anyone who seems to have any idea about the issue, who knows anything about the jury's right to judge the law as well as this case, who appears to be able to think for him/herself, or who seems predisposed to side with 'rights' in victimless crimes..."

[buzz_knox]

I'd think doing away with voir dire would be the best way to get the judicial system back on track. "A jury of your peers? Sure -- next 15 people, you're assigned to this one..."

Having participated in voir dire as a potential juror and an attorney, I'd disagree. There are people who will openly admit to a willingness to go against one side or the other notwithstanding the evidence. You need to be able to ferret these out. While it's true that many (most?) will conceal such bias, there are a sufficient number who will be honest about it to make the effort worthwhile.

[El Tejon]

Derek, what if 5 of those jurors are members of the Million Mommies?

Don't you think that the Defendant, accused of self-defense and possessing the means thereof, should be allowed to ask questions of those 5 to determine their potential to be fair and impartial?:D

[p35]

Once I was defending a guy charged with hitting his wife. In voir dire, someone asked if anyone had an experience with domestic violence. One woman raised her hand and said "Yes, I saw my father murder my mother." ohhh...kayy- she didn't get on the jury.

[Cosmoline]

The beauty of voir dire is that it exposes open bias *and* gives each side an equal opportunity to knock out jurors for any reason. When each side works against the other, the net result is that the most vocal and opinionated jurors tend to be the first excused, while the quieter and more even-handed jurors get seated more often. That, IMHO, is a good result. If someone is spouting off in voir dire for *either* side with bold statements about how he hates so-and-so's, that person is probably not going to be an unbiased trier of fact. I can think of no better way to weed them out than through the pure adversarial system.

[Derek Zeanah]

From where I sit, we've got a bunch of crappy, unpopular laws (drug laws come to mind, among others). One of the big advantages of the jury system (in my non-lawyer perspective) is that a jury can refuse to convict because they disagree with the law being enforced. "Yeah, he was harboring a slave, but slavery's an abomination and I won't send him to prison for it." -- wasn't that the reason fugitive slave laws weren't enforced -- because at least 1 in 12 jurors would simply refuse to convict in the majority of cases?

If we had "random" juries of our peers, I'd think we'd have a few more cases of jurors thinking "yeah, he was growing pot for his mom who's in chemo, but there's no way I'm going to throw a guy in jail for 10 years because he owned a dozen plants." What is it? Ballot box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box? If you take everyone out of the picture who knows anything about the issue, how does that help?

Do you eliminate lawyers from juries (I used to work at one of the largest law firms in the Southeast, and none of the attys that I talked to made it past voir dire.)? How 'bout people with post-graduate degrees (more stories from friends here). How about doctors in cases of medical malpractice (more stories -- and these folks hate stupidity in medicine, but actually have the understanding required to evaluate whether malpractice occurred or not.) It goes on, and on, and on.

Am I worried about having a MMMommie on the jury? Sure. But I'm more worried about losing everyone who admits to having ever belonged to the NRA during selection (more stories -- FIL hasn't been seated on a jury in the last dozen times he's been called -- each time the NRA gets him kicked). Same with everyone who admits to having a carry permit, or owning a handgun.

(Please ignore typing/grammar -- trying to empty all the Guiness in my fridge tonight. ;) )

[mantispid]

Jurries are *supposed* to be biased! They are supposed to represent the population. Pro-gunners, anti-gunners, pro-drug war, anti-drug war, etc. etc. The law is on trial as well as the defendant.

When a sufficient percentage of the population dislikes a law, they can nullify it.. and the best way that happens is through random juries w/o any type of voir dire.

I don't *want* unbiased triers of fact. I want highly biased ones, of every shape and size. I want intelligent people of conviction, not mindless zombies that will simply weigh evidence and follow the judge's orders.


That's why, if you're an opinionated type, and you want to be on a jury, the best thing is to simply lie during voir dire and pretend to be an opinionless drone. You're not under oath (at least not around here), so it isn't perjury (though if they put you under oath in your juristiction, you best not lie). That's what several of my lawyer friends have told me to do. They figure that voir dire is a violation of fair justice, and so using force (lying) to defend others (trying to give the accused a fair hearing) is justifiable.


Better to have an endless series of hung juries than to allow convictions under unethical laws.

[Pilgrim]

I'd think doing away with voir dire would be the best way to get the judicial system back on track. "A jury of your peers? Sure -- next 15 people, you're assigned to this one..."

Oh, wonderful. It would be just our luck to get a jury panel comprised of people who "graduated" from high school because they were too old to stay, and whose concept of the justice system comes from watching "Cops" and Judge Judy.

Pilgrim

[Derek Zeanah]

Oh, wonderful. It would be just our luck to get a jury panel comprised of people who "graduated" from high school because they were too old to stay, and whose concept of the justice system comes from watching "Cops" and Judge Judy.Let me give you a choice of 2 systems:

1) You get the next 15 people in line -- 12 jurors and 3 alternates. No-one is excused from Jury Duty without a doctor's note, and then they're expected to show up as soon as they're no longer contagious. Everyone serves on juries, and you really do get "the luck of the draw."

2) Everyone with above-average intelligence as indicated by post-grad degrees (PhD's, MDs, JDs, etc) is excluded. Anyone answering "yes" when asked if they've ever been a member of the NRA is thrown out. Basically, the jury is pruned by the prosecution and defense to try and get a jury that's most likely to agree to their side (though sometimes the judge will step in and interfere in a way that the defense doesn't like). At the end of the day, the jury is told their job is only to evaluate the facts of the case, not the law in question.

I'd prefer the former. If I'm being tried under an unjust law, it only takes one to say "no thanks -- I ain't convicting anyone under this statute." Good protection against the feds seizing your property and throwing you in jail because someone else was growing on your property. Against defending yourself from people dressed like terrorists in the middle of the night who happened to be cops. Against losing your yacht because one of your crew had the butt of a marijuana cigarette in his bag. Against installing a toilet that uses "too much" water to flush because you have unusually large turds. Against engaging in oral sex with your wife in a state that outaws it as "sodomy" (think alabama a few years ago, where the only lawful goal was "conception of a male heir."). And the list goes on. Get a random jury, and unpopular/unjust laws won't be enforced, because it isn't worth the time to try and do so.

[Cosmoline]

you're exaggerating the impact of voir dire. Each side only gets a few charges, and for cause challenges are limited and controlled by the Court. Since each side only has a few challenges, they tend to cancel each other out by getting rid of the obvious partisans on the panel. Voir dire does not automatically exclude doctors, eductated people, etc. And I'm not sure where you get this business about every member of the NRA being thrown out. I've never seen it happen. And my last jury had TWO medical doctors on it!

[Cosmoline]

Also, under your system a juror who proclaims that there is no way in heck he's ever going to give a dime to anyone will still sit on a jury. A juror who says he knows the defendant is guilty will still sit on the jury. It would be a nightmare.

[Correia]

I always get a kick out of how everybody despises lawyers, right up until they need one. :)

[Derek Zeanah]

And I'm not sure where you get this business about every member of the NRA being thrown out. I've never seen it happenFather in law. Every time he goes in for jury duty (he's retired.) It's gotten to the point where he just raises his hand at the beginning, says "I'm a lifetime member of the NRA< should I just go now?" and leaves.

Maybe that's a Florida thing (previously, north GA.)

[telewinz]

You get the next 15 people in line -- 12 jurors and 3 alternates. No-one is excused from Jury Duty without a doctor's note, and then they're expected to show up as soon as they're no longer contagious. Everyone serves on juries, and you really do get "the luck of the draw."

You must have little or no experience with our justice system. EVERYONE DOES NOT serve on juries and never will. The defense and the state are permitted to remove certain potential jurors as a matter of course, the judge can remove anyone he feels is unacceptable. Juors are given mail-in questionaires to complete even before they show-up at a court. The judge at the trial I served asked if ANY of the jurors wished to be excused "we are paid well to be here, you aren't", four jurors were excused by the judge. Its very easy and understandable to underestimate the ability of a single juror but a panel of 8-12 "common people" can be very difficult to fool.

Are you sure you are not letting politics cloud your judgement concerning a "new" idea? Just because a political system you disapprove of has a certain justice system should not reflect poorly on the merits of that system. We in the U.S. didn't invent justice you know, there is a great deal of documentation that states the poor man seldom enjoys it.:uhoh:

Why are our prisons filled primarily with the poor? Who's the dream team for them or me or you? I haven't met an inmate with wealthy parents yet, for most their standard of living improved when they entered prison.

[Cosmoline]

The defense and the state are permitted to remove certain potential jurors as a matter of course, the judge can remove anyone he feels is unacceptable."

Hmmm. Well depending on the type of case and the court, the defense and plaintiff or defense and state are given between three and six preempts each. That's it. The typical pool is between 30 and 45. The only jurors who can be removed for cause are those with direct contact or relation with the case, a party or a witness, or those who tell the court they cannot be fair. Also jurors in certain death penalty cases who cannot or will not impose the death penalty are not allowed to serve--though I do agree that this prohibition is out of line. There is no prohibition against doctors, lawyers, eductated people, or members of the NRA from serving. HOWEVER, many of the professionals in the pool will have a valid excuse. A doctor, for example, would certainly be excused if he's set to perform a vital operation or if he's on call at the ER. So you don't see too many of them. Lawyers are sometimes bumped because they know too many people in the case, or have already heard about the case on the grape vine--or simply because one of the lawyers on the case dislikes them.

[telewinz]

The only jurors who can be removed for cause are those with direct contact or relation with the case, a party or a witness, or those who tell the court they cannot be fair.
I beg to differ, the attorney does not have to state his reason, "for cause".

HOWEVER, many of the professionals in the pool will have a valid excuse.
Not in my county, it has to be an emergency, period. Doctors have other doctors cover their patients all the time.

Father in law. Every time he goes in for jury duty (he's retired.) It's gotten to the point where he just raises his hand at the beginning, says "I'm a lifetime member of the NRA< should I just go now?" and leaves.

More to do with his attitude than his membership in the NRA.

[Intune]

Wow, my Dad was a judge and my brother an attorney. All these years and and I never knew their slimeball ways. Hmm...

We have great dinner conversations and you know what? If you have your poopoo together and present a valid, concise argument for your pov, you can change the way people look at a given subject. Whodathunkit? Kinda like what lawyers do, eh?

[telewinz]

Lawyers are no more or no less honest than anyone else. People resent lawyers because they wish they had the same opportunities to enrich themselves dishonestly. Most people never earn that degree of trust or level of responsibility during their entire lives.