lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (08/25/83)
I just subscribed to net.legal, so I got 20 articles dumped at once. What I
read reinforces the thoughts that produced "American Judicial Headache"
(which produced many positive responses and one brief negative one).
Where do we point the finger for all this mess?
1. Clients. Perhaps what the legal system does more than anything else is
display that man is *not* basically good, that his basic nature is to get
anything he can no matter who he has to run over. (Tone it down, Bick, this
isn't net.religion...) Moreover, people will look for any loophole they can
get their hands on to get away with whatever they can get away with. Thus
the need for the complexity of the law to "cover all bases." If people would
obey the spirit of the law rather than the letter, the law wouldn't have to
be as complex. (Take a look at the relative simplicity of the Hebrew Law in
the Books of Moses.) Also, there is a distinct lack of respect on the part
of the people for the authority behind the law. If they think the law is
wrong, they will go ahead and disobey it and [pick your expletive] the
authority. Some people may seem to prefer anarchy, but I DARE them to try to
live and make a living in such a society. The government isn't perfect, but it
never will be without divine intervention (Religious reference unavoidable).
2a. The Judicial System. I cover most of this in AJH, but apparently it also
exists in Canada. "Rule 8, Commentary 9" (Dave Sherman) exposed the problem:
even if the guy is guilty, find some technicality to get him off - bad form
of the indictment, wrong jurisdiction, insufficient or inadmissible
evidence. This is the evidence of the adversary system rather than a search
for truth. Again, look at the old Hebrew system - the JUDGES made inquiry to
determine the truth. (Then again, there was respect for the authority then.)
2b. Judicial Interpretation of laws. Really a compounding of the points
above - by what authority must the courts interpret the laws to the letter
rather than the spirit? Worse, the judges are also lacking respect for the
authority, so they will interpret the law to suit their own preferences (YES
THIS HAPPENS). Probably the worst exploitation of this is the so-called
"Equal Rights" Amendment. When the opponents ask the proponents about
certain cases (things that would probably happen often, so they aren't really
holes), the proponents say "The courts will decide." Suuuuuure. Get away
with anything that isn't specifically proscribed...
3. Lawyers. They are the major contributors to the illegibility of the law.
Did you ever try to read the contract/agreement/application/whatever you get
handed? Some states now have laws that require "Simple English" - finally.
Even just the change to using "You" and "We, Us" made things simpler - at
least I know WHO they're talking about, even if I don't know WHAT. Further,
the lawyers don't seem to be motivated to clean up any of the above messes,
and this is where most of my displeasure with them arises.
In the end, it all gets back to: the basic dishonesty of people. I don't
remember who said it but it's true:
"The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the society."
Ready to defend or explain any of the above,
Larry Bickford, {ihnp4,ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!qubix!lab,wilner@pegasus.UUCP (08/26/83)
I must protest Mr. Bickford's conclusion that the American judiciary demonstrates that people are basically bad. Some people are basically bad, but the majority of people are basically good. What the judiciary does is provide a vehicle by which the nasty ones can amplify their actions. One rarely sees the good ones in court because they don't have the stomach for it, but that doesn't mean such people don't exist. I can easily imagine the American judiciary being well-used in a fictitious country populated solely by good people. My various experiences with courts and lawyers have been 100% negative, but I have not been fooled into drawing a negative conclusion about the citizens that do not go to court.