Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Personal attacks and defensiveness aside... Other civilized countries seem to run a more expedient and efficient (but still fair) judicial system than we do. Japan comes to mind. I'm with jonvn here, as far as substance, anyhow. As American media consumers, we routinely witness the excruciating length of both civil and criminal trials [YEARS for a lawsuit to be resolved], the fact that income and race are frequently more influential on a legal conflict's outcome than is actual culpability, and the ridiculously high percentage of "idiosyncratic" decisions made by judges. As Americans, we have come to barely question that our "for the people" system doesn't allow real people to participate without engaging the expensive assistance of an attorney. As American jurors, we witness the systemic bumbling and the lack of integrity and ability on the part of other jurors. And yet, as a group, Americans continue to wave our flags and brag that we have the best system in the world. That's partly because we're ignorant of other countries' systems. And it's because we all are continuously -- since our first public school class in government or social studies -- taught that we are superior to all other cultures. To be sure, there are strengths in our system. But the system overall is far more bloated, inefficient, inconsistent, and unfair than it should be. Nevermind that it's better than some. It's not what it should be.
Originally Posted By Mr X Although I would agree that many countries, such as the ones Jon listed, probably have comparable or even better legal systems than America...I'm not sure I'd include Japan in that list. I've heard some stories.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I'm not sure I'd include Japan in that list. I've heard some stories.>> Okay. There is always anecdotal evidence to support either side of an argument, but if your overall judgement is that Japan's is not a model to aspire to, I defer to your knowledge.
Originally Posted By Mr X I can't really speak for the "system", having never seen it in action (thankfully), but I was more referring to some very draconian punishments I've heard about.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Other civilized countries seem to run a more expedient and efficient (but still fair) judicial system than we do. Japan comes to mind.>> I never made any claim that the U.S. system was efficient. Just that it was the best at safeguarding the rights of the accused. I'll listen to alternative views, but you'll have to come up with a pretty strong case to convince me.
Originally Posted By jonvn This is part of my point. We always hear about how we've got such a great system here, but we never hear why, or what these other places have. As far as draconian punishments, we have the death penalty here. We also have people going to jail for years for victimless crimes. I was perusing the legal systems of different modern countries. They are all about the same, more or less, at least from what I have been reading. I would rather stand trial here than in say Singapore, but that does not mean this is the best that there is or can be. To suggest it's close to perfect, as in 99.999% of the time it gets it right, is extremely difficult to believe.
Originally Posted By jonvn For example, we do need some sort of tort reform. Loser pays. Or at least runs a very serious risk of it, if there is any whiff of oppportunism in the suit. Like this recent dry cleaner suit, where the guy sued for millions over a pair of pants, costing the defendants over $100k FOR NOTHING. I guess that's part of the .001% we have gotten wrong, except stuff happens like this every day at a smaller scale. If you're sued over something ridiculous, you should not only be forced to pay court costs, but attorney fees, and time away from work, and so on. Class action lawsuits should require the money to chiefly go to the plaintiffs, if there is a win, and the defendants in huge corporations should be forced to pay out real damages and not pennies on the dollar. There are all kinds of things that make the public not to want to sit on a jury. Chiefly, it's a pain in the rear. But a lot of it is because people perceive the system as a joke and a game, and that verdicts by juries get overturned all the time anyway. Not much point in it.
Originally Posted By jonvn I guess here's another anecdote: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/ 11/paternity.cases/index.html</a> Guy has to pay child support for a kid who is not his. These things build up and form an impression.
Originally Posted By barboy "Guy has to pay child support for a kid who is not his." This scenario has happened many times over and I'll bet that few people know about it; and it reinforces just how ludicrous our legal system can be(the only problem is this is no laughing matter to the victims who are compelled by unscrupulous collection lawyers to pay). There must be a special hell for those in the legal profession who know that a named father is indeed not the biological father but yet they pursue collections and/or or jail anyway.
Originally Posted By jonvn As I said, it's just a game to these people. Justice and decency matter little.
Originally Posted By barboy "But they get it 99.999% right!" Yes, complete fantasy(at least in my experience). My first-hand experiences with courts and lawyers include: being a defendant in a civil case(auto collision)whereby another motorist and her scum of the earth lawyer tried to extract 300K from me when her "injury" was just some trivial soft tissue damage on one wrist. There was no blood, no ambulance nor police after the collision and we both drove away just fine after exchanging info. 11 months later I am sued. They made a fraudulant claim that I was under the influence of alcohol(sheer and complete BS!)to mess with my defense and get a jury looking to punish. Even her punk husband who was not even in the collision sued me with some frivolous "loss of consortium" claim. watching my parents divorce in the early 90's and their lawyers taking just about everything they had. Their marital assests were less than 100k but yet their lawyers took maybe 30K and 38K respectively (I don't remember the exact numbers but it was appalling when the dust settled.) Heck, even the judge of all people had some pretty stern words to their lawyers over the billing. This led Mom to ask the US for protection against creditors and get a fresh start. Her bankruptcy lawyer was very, very scrupulous and fair-- if only the whole profession were like him!--- no excessive billing just honest, intelligent, affordable and sound representation. I still talk with him after all these years. being called by the state as a witness in a criminal matter. Some low life weak minded hack of a DA compelled me to testify against my own father back in the late '80's. Victims should never be forced to testify if they don't want to especially against their own family. I can only hope that that prosecutor has since been disbarred and is now so broke that she can't even afford to fill her gas tank. watching a good friend of mine get railroaded by California. He was 100% innocent but he was convicted anyway. I still have deep resentment over what happened. knowing my father-in-law fairly well who was a court commissioner for juveniles and former lawyer. The stories he told(as well as many of his stances)just further sickened me. dealing with the county over a conservatorship. I could write page after page addressing the stupidity and sheer waste of money and time on this affair trying to please the courts. I have made 5 appearances in one year alone over an estate that is valued at only $1,400. Enough is enough. Yes, our legal system and lawyers as a whole group sicken and frustrate me.
Originally Posted By mele <<her "injury" was just some trivial soft tissue damage on one wrist... Even her punk husband who was not even in the collision sued me with some frivolous "loss of consortium" claim.>> How much of a loss of consortium could there really be when it sounds like their entire sexual relationship consisted of hand jobs?
Originally Posted By Mr X The legal system and lawyers are sickened by the general public? Um, I realize they are above it all and superior and looking down and all that...but, aren't they a PART of the "general public"? Yeah, I'll go with Jon and others and say that lawyers and cops and judges suck a lot more than most of us regular people. I hate them, as a whole. And politicians. Gotta throw them too. A wretched hive of scum and villany, all.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Child support enforcement for a rather large county here in Southern California.>>> Oh My God! You just shot to top of my respect list dude. (not that you care but still) Finally, someone on the good guys in law!
Originally Posted By DVC_dad I personally do not have much of a problem with courts, lawyers, and "the system", however, cops are not to be grouped with the former mentioned. Maybe it's just me, and I could be wrong, and probably am wrong, but my IMPRESSION is that in some states, the law and law suits that are brought seem to take all kinds of zainy turns and twists and make the national news. And no offense, just tell me I am wrong because I am walking on egg shells here, but it SEEMS like many of those you hear of come out of California...at least more from CA that say...Texas? If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance. Like SPP once sarcastically accused me, I am basing this on my vast knowledge of California law, which is almost nothing. Is there any truth in my questionable impression?
