gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (John Gilmore) (07/25/86)
In article <8607171214.ae23797@SEM.BRL.ARPA>, ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET writes: > It is roughly equivalent to blaming the > undertaker because your loved one has died... > I also object to the feeling that lawyers are responsible > for the laws they work with. It would be just as sensible > to blame doctors treating cancer patients for having created > cancer. Lawyers work with law as it is, not as they wish it > were. It is the duty of the citizenry to abolish those laws > they find repugnant and enforce those they find agreeable. > It is the job of the legal system to discern the intent of > statutes and practice accordingly. If you want to reform > the legal system, start with the law, not the legal > profession. I find this to be very self-serving. There seems to be a strong correlation between lawyers and lawmakers. How many members of Congress have practiced law? How many judges have practiced law? Now don't tell me lawyers are not responsible. I *know* it's not English majors drafting those laws! It would be great if I could "start by reforming the law" but since I have you here reading my words, let's start with you. "The law" doesn't seem to listen to me very well. My view of the main problem is that people wrote the law as a way to control other people. I don't want to be controlled. It seems that the inevitable trend (in a society that values precedents) is for more laws, more attempts at control, and less freedom. The only widely acknowledged way to repudiate the precedents seems to be revolution. [E.g. the world thinks it's OK for a new government to not honor the old one's ideas, but if there is continuity in the government, it it held to the precedents, treaties, procedures, etc. that it made before.] Another problem is that recently the law has been trying to fix blame for things to specific individuals, and provide specific redress to people who claim to be injured. In many cases, the process of providing redress is vastly more expensive to society and the individuals than the original problem. Insurance is a great example here; in California many public events have had to be canceled because the city could not afford to insure itself against suits. This is because laws and courts (run by lawyers) have set up precedents where if a firecracker falls on your toe during Chinese New Year you can sue the city for $500,000 and win. Laura Creighton has a friend who had a large hole dug (for a future swimming pool) in their backyard. It was surrounded by a chain link fence. One winter a snowmobilist came by, CUT THE FENCE and entered, fell into the hole, and was critically injured. The friend ran out, called an ambulance and because of this the guy survived. When the cops arrived on the scene, they said "You should have just let him die in that hole" and they thought wow, what callous cops we have. Well, the guy sued them for having a dangerous location lying around and WON and they get to support him for the rest of his life. I don't understand how that can be called just, but lawyers argued the case and lawyers judged the case and wrote the laws that set the stage and look what happened. Another recent bad trend (still reading?) is the idea that you should be arrested and jailed for "looking like you are about to commit a crime". E.g. if you drive down the road drunk, you are jailed. You haven't killed any kids, you haven't sideswiped any trees, you were just driving down the road and it's time to go to jail. Bullshit it is. How about "possession with intent to XXX"? It's not legal to blow up other peoples' buildings, so let's make it illegal to have dynamite. The point is that no harm has been caused ("YET" say the lawyers) so why are you bothering these people? Catch the driver who kills a kid and put him away for 30 years, or execute him for all I care -- but don't do it because he was drunk. Do it because he hurt somebody. > ...there > are people whose knowledge of the workings of their > government, including the law, is so dismal that, literally, > they should be prevented from voting. Gee, I think it's the people who *know* how the law works who should be prevented from voting. What they have created is not working very well, let's let some fresh minds give it a try. PS: The idea that you, the citizen, are responsible for knowing the text and meaning and current interpretation of every law on the books is another great fuckup in the current law. Not even the judges and lawyers and congresspeople know this stuff, how is the average citizen expected to?
colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman") (07/28/86)
In article <8607251307.AA03538@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (John Gilmore) writes: > I find this to be very self-serving. There seems to be a strong > correlation between lawyers and lawmakers. How many members of > Congress have practiced law? How many judges have practiced law? > Now don't tell me lawyers are not responsible. I *know* it's not > English majors drafting those laws! Mr. Gilmore seems to be describing his impressions as an outsider. Of course there "seems to be a correlation" between lawyers and lawmakers, but it's not what he thinks. To begin with, most of the laws that are applied are state and local laws. Everywhere I know of in the U.S., state and local legislators are chosen from political clubs, and the one inviolable criterion for selection is loyalty. As a practical matter, legal training is a great asset in drafting laws. When a state legislature passes a law in vague and clumsy language, with glaring loopholes in some places and outrageous penalties in others, you may be sure it was drafted by amateurs. Unfortunately for us, most legislators know nothing about legal writing--indeed, few legislators can write even fairly well. In my state (N.Y.), legislators tend to be loud and stupid. And our laws show it! > It would be great if I could "start by reforming the law" but since > I have you here reading my words, let's start with you. "The law" > doesn't seem to listen to me very well. Let's start with you instead. If you were injured in an accident, would you hire a lawyer who would try for a moderate and appropriate settlement, or one who would exploit the weakness of the law to obtain a settlement out of all proportion? If you're like most litigants, you'll hire the most rapacious lawyer you can afford. So long as the legal system has its weak points--the legislators and judges--some lawyers and clients will be ready to exploit them. It's your own fault for thinking that an annual trip to the polls will discharge your political duty. Complaining about the lawyers under a corrupt political system is like never bathing and then complaining about fleas.