| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 203.3 | The Trouble With Lawyers | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Jan 03 1996 11:09 | 31 |
| I taped the "The Trouble With Lawyers" by John Stossle last night and
watch it after I got thoroughly fed up with the football game.
Didn't really show anything many of us didn't know already. However,
my hat is off to Stossle for doing the show. He did a pretty good
job of exposing just how dirty the business is. Showed one old 90+
year old couple who for some reason was getting divorced and the
lawyers were bleeding them dry. I just hope he never needs a lawyer
again.
They pointed out that the U.S. is the only democracy that does not have
"loser pays". Making it possible to sue somebody for nearly anything
and force them to run up gigantic attorney's fees with basically no
risk to the plaintiff. Showed one woman in San Francisco who is
basically making her living suing anybody and everybody over the most
trivial matters. Defendants and insurance companies are forced to
settle because the cost of fighting far outweighs the cost of just
paying off.
They mentioned the American Trial Lawyer's Association as the nations
most powerful lobby, but didn't mention them as the Clinton's biggest
contributor after Dan Quayle gave his speech about the need for Tort
Reform.
One thing I found rather interesting after the concept was foo-foo'ed
in this conference was the comparison of the mentality of legal battles
to combat, just with different weapons. In fact most of the pieces of
Stossle's commentary were done with a .50 cal. machine gun in the
background.
fred();
|
| 203.4 | Stossle on lawyers | MROA::SPICER | | Wed Jan 03 1996 12:52 | 16 |
| I saw Stossle too.
I guess I got the message that we have the system we deserve. 90 million
cases of someone suing someone last year suggests that it isn't all down
to lawyers. They are just mercenaries who are getting rich because of
other peoples problems.
I am biased (because I'm an ex Brit, and because my ex never stops
making accusations that are thrown out but cost me a lot in legal
bills) but I think the loser pays approach would cut out a lot of the
questionable cases.
One other major difference between the U.S. system and my old country,
if you sue you can only expect to get compensated for real financial
loss and medical issues. No $3M (or whatever it was in the end) for the
fact that McDonalds sell their coffee hot.
|
| 203.5 | | CSC32::HADDOCK | Saddle Rozinante | Wed Jan 03 1996 13:47 | 13 |
|
Another point Stossle kept hammering on was how much the current system
costs _us_. McDonalds doesn't pay the $3M, or the lawyer's fees. It
just passes those costs on to the consumer (for McDonalds, that's anybody
who's bought a Big Mac lately)
$100 is added to the cost of a little league football helmet because
of insurance against law-suits (and probably to motorcycle helmets
too). Millions are added to medical fees to cover mal-practice
insurance). How many new drugs and medical procedures are not available
to those who would benefit because of regulation and legal expense?
fred();
|
| 203.2 | NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY LAWYERS ARE SO DISLIKED | STOWOA::RONDINA | | Thu Jan 04 1996 10:57 | 11 |
| I could only tolerate watching about 20 minutes of the show. Now I know
why there are so many lawyer jokes, why they are held in such scorn and
are referred to as slime. I am sure not all are like the ones
portrayed. Remember though, as mentioned on NPR (National Public Radio)
about a month ago, the number 1, national, universal value is greed
(making money). Lawyers have found a way to do it big time and fast,
according to the show.
FYI, there is a record of another civilization who had an abundance of
lawyers who did nothing but stir the citizens up to contention and
litigation one against another. They almost destroyed the nation.
|
| 203.1 | | QUARK::LIONEL | Free advice is worth every cent | Thu Jan 04 1996 12:42 | 4 |
| I moved the base note here (from note 5) for people to use as a discussion
topic.
Steve
|
| 203.6 | Some things to think about. | MOSAIC::GOBLE | | Thu Jan 04 1996 14:52 | 64 |
|
Some things to think about:
(1) If you were against the Death Penalty and you heard of people
being executed by being shot would you blame the Firing Squad?
(2) What segements of society do you suppose would encourage you to blame
the Firing Squad?
(3) Do you think much of lawyer's behavior violates the law?; do you think
it violates the rules of procedure of the courts and/or the judges?; do
you think lawyers who violate the culture of the courtroom win the most
cases, get the most work, are favored by the most judges?
(3) If, as some believe, there is NOT vigorous persuit of fact and truth
in the court system -- such that the truth frequently does NOT prevail --
whom do you suppose has an easier time of getting the outcome they desire?
(a) The poor.
(b) The rich.
(c) The honest.
(d) The dishonest.
(e) The wacko's, insane, and irresponsible.
(f) The well adjusted and responsible.
(g) The criminals.
(h) Big Business.
(i) Government.
(j) The Little Guy.
(4) Do you think there is a lot of persuit of Perjury changes in the justice
system today? Can you think of anyone in the O.J. Trial who has been
tried for Perjury? Do you think virtually everyone in the O.J. Trial
told the Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth? Do you think
the truth can prevail in the courts without persuit of Perjury for those
who lie and manufacture "evidence"?
(5) If all laws were perfect and the courts and lawyers were all perfect
(optimized for the 90's) EXCEPT for one thing -- that the truth and the
facts were not validated -- what do you think the outcomes of cases would
be? If "mistakes" were made how would that get recognized?; how would
society learn about it?
(6) If "mistakes" were frequently made how would that impact your view of
the Death Penalty?
(6) What do you think cameras in the courtroom would do for the pursuit of
truth, and the accountablity of our lawyers, courts, and system of justice?
(7) Do you think that the O.J. Trial probably showed gave us a view of The
Best things can be in the justice system or The Worst in terms of the
persuit of truth? Do you think taking away most of the money, publicity,
and cameras would have resulted in more or less persuit of truth?
(8) Have you ever experienced some dramatic event then read the writeup of it
in the newspaper? Was it accurate? If the media frequently filtered
and slanted "the news" how would you know? If you read both accounts
of the recently murdered lawyer in the Globe and the Herald did you
notice the great difference in the "facts" presented -- not in the
events of the shooting, but in all of the context surrounding it. Why
do you suppose?
(9) Ever hear the saying "in war the winner writes the history books"? What
do you suppose are the implications of what that means?
|
| 203.7 | | WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM | | Thu Jan 04 1996 15:52 | 125 |
| >>Note 203.6 The Trouble With Lawyers 6 of 6
>>MOSAIC::GOBLE 64 lines 4-JAN-1996 14:52
>> -< Some things to think about. >-
>>Some things to think about:
>>(1) If you were against the Death Penalty and you heard of people
>> being executed by being shot would you blame the Firing Squad?
Good point, I don't think I would like the Firing Sqaud for what they
do for a living. That job would not even be considered in my book.
>>(2) What segements of society do you suppose would encourage you to blame
>> the Firing Squad?
Have you ever seen all the commercials that lawyers put on TV for
injury ect. How can you compare the two...
>>(3) Do you think much of lawyer's behavior violates the law?; do you think
>> it violates the rules of procedure of the courts and/or the judges?; do
>> you think lawyers who violate the culture of the courtroom win the most
>> cases, get the most work, are favored by the most judges?
Do you mean the law that were written by lawyers... Naw I don't think
they would have written them that way. Yes, alot of sleezy lawyers win
because they are sneaky and sleezy. I don't think that they are
favored by all judges but then again are'nt most judges X lawyers?
>>(3) If, as some believe, there is NOT vigorous persuit of fact and truth
>> in the court system -- such that the truth frequently does NOT prevail --
>> whom do you suppose has an easier time of getting the outcome they desire?
>> (a) The poor.
The poor can take advantage of the legal system by getting free lawyers
and making you spend a bunch without any damage to their wallet.
A working person has to pay for this service out of their extra income
and guess how much that will buy you. Lunch at McDonalds?;)
>> (b) The rich.
Well, you can get the best MONEY CAN BUY, look at OJ and look at the
results.
>> (c) The honest.
Not too often
>> (d) The dishonest.
More often the the honest and these people can usually get free lawyers
if they belong to the A category.
>> (e) The wacko's, insane, and irresponsible.
Well, they can get away with murder as we know.
>> (f) The well adjusted and responsible.
Only if they are fortunate enough not to get tangled in the system,
even if they did not do anything wrong... Reference my answers to A,D
and G if you want a clue.
>> (g) The criminals.
This category is the worst if they belong to either B or E
>> (h) Big Business.
The same as B except not as much
>> (i) Government.
They are the only organization that I know of that can make laws but
don't have to follow them. Look at EEOC and then look at the record of
congress.
>> (j) The Little Guy.
You seem to have alot of redundantcy here, A could be J ect.
>>(4) Do you think there is a lot of persuit of Perjury changes in the justice
>> system today? Can you think of anyone in the O.J. Trial who has been
>> tried for Perjury? Do you think virtually everyone in the O.J. Trial
>> told the Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth? Do you think
>> the truth can prevail in the courts without persuit of Perjury for those
>> who lie and manufacture "evidence"?
No to all of these...
>>(5) If all laws were perfect and the courts and lawyers were all perfect
>> (optimized for the 90's) EXCEPT for one thing -- that the truth and the
>> facts were not validated -- what do you think the outcomes of cases would
>> be? If "mistakes" were made how would that get recognized?; how would
>> society learn about it?
If they were litterly perfect, no mistakes would be made...
>>(6) If "mistakes" were frequently made how would that impact your view of
>> the Death Penalty?
It depends on where the mistakes were made and on what kind of cases.
If you mean mistakes just on murder cases where the death penalty can
be given, then I would want some actions taken to remove the mitakes
but I still would not have any problems with the Death Penalty.
>>(6) What do you think cameras in the courtroom would do for the pursuit of
>> truth, and the accountablity of our lawyers, courts, and system of justice?
I think it just sationializes them and not much else.
>>(7) Do you think that the O.J. Trial probably showed gave us a view of The
>> Best things can be in the justice system or The Worst in terms of the
>> persuit of truth? Do you think taking away most of the money, publicity,
>> and cameras would have resulted in more or less persuit of truth?
Who knows, if all involved were a bunch of nobodies, maybe they would not
have found all of this evidence at the suspects house and of course, if
it happend in Boston or Bangor or ect. maybe it would have been totally
different.
>>(8) Have you ever experienced some dramatic event then read the writeup of it
>> in the newspaper? Was it accurate? If the media frequently filtered
>> and slanted "the news" how would you know? If you read both accounts
>> of the recently murdered lawyer in the Globe and the Herald did you
>> notice the great difference in the "facts" presented -- not in the
>> events of the shooting, but in all of the context surrounding it. Why
>> do you suppose?
Thats easy, two different people wrote the articles and both of these
individuals and the other people involved all have different slants on
life and have different levels of professionialism.
>>(9) Ever hear the saying "in war the winner writes the history books"? What
>> do you suppose are the implications of what that means?
It means that you can't expect to get much of the loosers view and the
implications are probably endless as to how people react from what they
read.
|
| 203.8 | re 203.7, a rejoinder | MOSAIC::GOBLE | | Fri Jan 05 1996 16:58 | 106 |
| re 203.7, a rejoinder:
>>(2) What segements of society do you suppose would encourage you to blame
>> the Firing Squad?
+ Have you ever seen all the commercials that lawyers put on TV for
+ injury ect. How can you compare the two...
I am not saying they are the same, not equating them, just trying to get the
point accross that the vast majority of what lawyers do is NOT illegal and
IS approved by the courts/judges/system. As far as advertising is concerned
isn't that one of the pillars of capitalism? Who benefits most from the
commercials? Not the rich, the educated, the influential, the powerful --
they already know about lawyers. Commercials encourage competition and
information flow. If some frivolous suits are brought, that is a problem for
the rules (the courts/judges/system).
>>(3) Do you think much of lawyer's behavior violates the law?; do you think
>> it violates the rules of procedure of the courts and/or the judges?; do
>> you think lawyers who violate the culture of the courtroom win the most
>> cases, get the most work, are favored by the most judges?
+ Do you mean the law that were written by lawyers... Naw I don't think
+ they would have written them that way. Yes, alot of sleezy lawyers win
+ because they are sneaky and sleezy. I don't think that they are
+ favored by all judges but then again are'nt most judges X lawyers?
If you have any experience in court (I have in divorce court) you quickly
realize that lawyers are very much operating within the range of behavior
allowed by the court. Lawyers who are not liked and violate the rules are not
looked on favorably by the court, will not win as much, and obviously will not
be popular with potential clients, to say nothing of the other sanctions that
are available (fines, disbarrment) Ergo, if we don't like what some lawyers
do then THE SYSTEM (courts/judges/laws/rules of procedure) needs to be changed.
I have had experience with effective, honest, moral, lawyers who just tried to
advance my interest and miminized their expenses, and I have had experience
with ineffectual, dishonest, unethical (but legally compliant) lawyers whose
first priority was to make money. Interestingly, in the divorce arena the
former were in Texas and the latter in Massachusetts. Don't you get it: the
conventional wisdom WANTS you to blame the lawyers; that's how the
responsibility is shifted from the system and those who benefit from the
problems in the system (and don't think certain parties don't benefit more than
others). If the symptoms get the attention and not the causes of the problems
then nothing is likely to get solved; In fact, I would predict that things would
get worse!
>>(6) If "mistakes" were frequently made how would that impact your view of
>> the Death Penalty?
+ It depends on where the mistakes were made and on what kind of cases.
+ If you mean mistakes just on murder cases where the death penalty can
+ be given, then I would want some actions taken to remove the mitakes
+ but I still would not have any problems with the Death Penalty.
Ah yes, a reasonable answer except for the obvious problem: if mistakes were
made how would they be recognized? It is my opinion that the mistakes OFTEN
will not be detected and corrected in a system where the truth FREQUENTLY
does not prevail. If the truth usually prevailed I could accept that mistakes
would be corrected. I do not believe that the few cases we see on 60 minutes
and elsewhere are most of them. Look at the Fells Acres case. One Mass
judge let out 2 of the Ameraults on a technicality (mother and daughter) while
the other remains in prison (the son). The technicality looked to me to be
REALLY technical -- so much so that it looked like an excuse for the judge to
do the right think without anyone in the court system openly admitting
incompetence. This is a case with national attention, written about often in
the Wall Street Journal, one of the 2 or 3 biggest child abuse cases in the
last 10 years. An assistant to the Mass attorney general (according to the
Journal) appeared on a recent radio talk show and said that new evidence
against the son had been unearthed after the trial, a picture of the son in
his clown suit (in which he was supposed to dress when abusing children). When
asked to see the picture after the program he admitted it was just a picture
of the son, but NOT in a clown suit. Does the Truth matter here at all? (If you
don't believe it check out the latest Journal articles on this for yourself).
>>(6) What do you think cameras in the courtroom would do for the pursuit of
>> truth, and the accountablity of our lawyers, courts, and system of justice?
+ I think it just sationializes them and not much else.
You don't think the public learned a lot about the court system? You think
having cameras in all the courtrooms would not discourage testilying in
court ("testilying" was recently cited by ex Boston Police Comissioner
Bratton and something that goes on as the police make up evidence to make
sure that "the right thing" happens. Do you think Bratton know something
here? You don't think video taping and/or broadcast of all this would
discourage dishonesty? My opinion is that it would make it much more
difficult.
>>(8) Have you ever experienced some dramatic event then read the writeup of it
>> in the newspaper? Was it accurate? If the media frequently filtered
>> and slanted "the news" how would you know? If you read both accounts
>> of the recently murdered lawyer in the Globe and the Herald did you
>> notice the great difference in the "facts" presented -- not in the
>> events of the shooting, but in all of the context surrounding it. Why
>> do you suppose?
+ Thats easy, two different people wrote the articles and both of these
+ individuals and the other people involved all have different slants on
+ life and have different levels of professionialism.
Again, yes, but you don't think there are any consistencies other than
random individual differences? If you read the additional information that
the Herald added (the lawyer was a sleeze, had complaints filed with the Bar
by at least 2 of his colleagues, had left California under duress, etc) you
get a very different impression of the potential provocation the murderer might have
been subjected-to. I don't think that is an accident. My impression of the
Globe is that its news is highly consistent, filtered, and slanted: information
relevant to other conclusions is left out. The Herald seems to be a mix of
differing points of view. It seems to me dangerous not to question much of
what is presented in the media.
|
| 203.9 | | WMOIS::MELANSON_DOM | | Fri Jan 05 1996 22:50 | 105 |
| re 203.8
Just to keep this not from not getting too long, I will only
extract the specific items and respond to them.
>>I am not saying they are the same, not equating them, just trying to get the
>>point accross that the vast majority of what lawyers do is NOT illegal and
>>IS approved by the courts/judges/system. As far as advertising is concerned
>>isn't that one of the pillars of capitalism?
Judges, prosecuters, law makers all come from the same mold, ever hear
of the fox watching the chicken coop and I'm sure you know what that
means. Sure, there are some lawyers that are honest but think about
the system just perpetuating itself on itself and using us to pay for
it all and causing life as we know it to be hell, living in fear of
persecution or should I say prosection.
>>(3) Do you think much of lawyer's behavior violates the law?; do you think
>>it violates the rules of procedure of the courts and/or the judges?; do
>>you think lawyers who violate the culture of the courtroom win the most
>>cases, get the most work, are favored by the most judges?
Gee, I wish I could write up my own job description and give myself a
greate pay ect. They write the rules and the laws, maybe these laws
and rules as to how they are applied should be writtend and monitored
by regular people (NOT LAWYERS). Lets take a look at how criminals have
more rights than you when you are the victom ect. Some damn common sense
needs to be put in place here... Yes I have been through a divorce
ect. and have seen alot of bull on some of these TV shows where these
jerks in jail complain about the type of peanut butter they were denied
and cost the taxpayer 50k to fight it in court. And as far as the
Lawyer following procedures ect. in court, yes the judge gets pissed if
they don't, but that does not count for all of the other things that go
on behind the seens. Lets get control of the law out of the
professionals that can't see past their noses of what the world is
really like. We need plain everyday people that are in touch with some
sort of reality and fairness to write the laws and the rules of how
they are applied.
>>Ah yes, a reasonable answer except for the obvious problem: if mistakes
>>were made how would they be recognized? It is my opinion that the mistake
>>OFTEN will not be detected and corrected in a system where the truth
>>FREQUENTLY does not prevail.
Thats of course is your opinion and it may have some merit. That just
points out that we have a real problem with our law enforcement
department. I think for the most part, violent crimes evidence is not
screwed around with, but there should be some stringent rules in place
and someone making sure that they are followed when it comes to
collecting evidence in a violent crime or any crime for that matter.
Lets not let law enforcement officials/professionals be the watch dog
for these things and maybe the system could and would work better.
>>You don't think the public learned a lot about the court system? You think
>>having cameras in all the courtrooms would not discourage testilying in
>>court ("testilying" was recently cited by ex Boston Police Comissioner
>>Bratton and something that goes on as the police make up evidence to make
>>sure that "the right thing" happens. Do you think Bratton know something
>>here? You don't think video taping and/or broadcast of all this would
>>discourage dishonesty? My opinion is that it would make it much more
>>difficult.
I really can't answer this one because I have only watched a few cases
like the Brodrick murder case ect. I don't think it would stop people
from trying to pull the wool over our eyes, they will try to get away
with what they can. It may discourage some things but look at all of
the smaller more petty stuff that goes threw the system, who has the
time to watch all of these. As a matter of fact, I have seen some of
these when I went through my divorce and I think that these would be better
to show then the nationally more popular cases. I think the regular
cases, you know the smaller stuff is where alot of the corruption
happens and the deals are made. So and so is declared
insane/incompantent so the kids or someone can take all the money and
do what they want with it, even though the person may have made other
arrangements and I'm sure there are alot of other things that happen
like that all the time.
>>Again, yes, but you don't think there are any consistencies other than
>>random individual differences? If you read the additional information
>>that the Herald added (the lawyer was a sleeze, had complaints filed with
>>the Bar by at least 2 of his colleagues, had left California under duress,
>>etc) you get a very different impression of the potential provocation the
>>murderer might been subjected-to. I don't think that is an accident. My
>>impression of the Globe is that its news is highly consistent, filtered, and
>>slanted: information relevant to other conclusions is left out. The Herald
>>seems to be a mix of differing points of view. It seems to me dangerous not
>>to question much of what is presented in the media.
I agree with you on this, not all organizations are the same and what
is published should be all of the information so that people can come
to their own conclusions. So this lawyer uses the LAW if you will to
kind of protect himself and this guy just said enough is enough and did
him in. Did he deserve it? Well, did the guy that he was screwing
over deserve what he got? What is the right answer? Alot of people
will try to give you what they think it is and everybody can give an
arguement for each opinion. I think lawyers have too much power over
us in this country and it needs to be stopped. We the people need to
govern ourselves and not let a special groups that have placed
themselves over us, do us in. We really need some fundamental changes
in the system and its gotta happen soon.
|
| 203.10 | A long row to hoe: get out pens and sledgehammers | RANGER::GOBLE | | Sat Jan 06 1996 11:16 | 38 |
| re 203.9:
> ... As a matter of fact, I have seen some of these when I went through
> my divorce and I think that these would be better to show then the
> nationally more popular cases. I think the regular cases, you know the
> smaller stuff is where alot of the corruption happens and the deals are
> made. So and so is declared insane/incompantent so the kids or someone
> can take all the money and do what they want with it, even though the
> person may have made other arrangements and I'm sure there are alot of
> other things that happen like that all the time.
Absolutely. Because the RISK of embarrasment/sanctions/etc. to the dishonest
parties is least with "small" cases (like, maybe, selling a gram of crack;
prostitution; or, decisions on who raises your kids), poorly funded cases,
cases that are not legally "interesting" (arouse legal watchdogs, ACLU),
cases that are not socially "interesting" (sells newspapers), cases that are
not culturally validating (outcome is likely to go against conventional wisdom
or cultural prejudices), cases where one party is lacking time to invest
to make an effective presentation (borrowing a standard bureaucratic weapon --
paperwork/proceduralize you to death).
> We really need some fundamental changes in the system and its gotta happen
> soon.
That's the bottom line. I predict, unfortunately, it will NOT be soon (it will
be a matter of a decade at the least and a generation or more at the most), but
the number of culturally educational "events" will keep increasing, and it's
going to get more and more nasty. I'd say we're in a basebuilding phase right
now (using an idiom of the stock market). Once the Globe starts to give it
equal ink then we'll know that it is a "truth" that it has become safe for
followers (and the general public) to espouse. The shame of it is that if the
general public could see what is really happening right now behind closed doors
(and really understand the dynamics) we would have some rapid changes. In my
opinion when "we the people" are fully informed we frequently do the right
thing (in that sense I guess you'd say I'm an optimist!).
|
| 203.11 | a few thoughts on .6 | CSSE::NEILSEN | Wally Neilsen-Steinhardt | Tue Jan 09 1996 12:13 | 104 |
| .6>(3) Do you think much of lawyer's behavior violates the law?; do you think
> it violates the rules of procedure of the courts and/or the judges?; do
> you think lawyers who violate the culture of the courtroom win the most
> cases, get the most work, are favored by the most judges?
Laws and procedures are created by lawyers, codified by lawyers acting as
legislators and interpreted by lawyers acting as judges. All this, of course,
is of great value to lawyers. The question is, what value is it for the rest of
us?
> (a) The poor.
Only when they can hook up with some PC cause. The average public defender is
worth just about what they are paid.
> (b) The rich.
Usually, although it costs them. Many years ago a defence lawyer, attacked for
getting a murderer off, said something like "Sure I got him off, but it cost him
every penny he had and every penny he will ever earn. Isn't that justice?"
> (c) The honest.
Only if lucky enough to avoid the courts altogether.
> (d) The dishonest.
Only if they have good memories, to keep thier lies straight.
> (e) The wacko's, insane, and irresponsible.
Only if they can be persuaded not to act as their own lawyer.
> (f) The well adjusted and responsible.
See (c) above.
> (g) The criminals.
See (d) and (e) above.
> (h) Big Business.
Only if they can avoid a jury trial.
> (i) Government.
I think government has a lot of trouble, considering they own the police, the
courts and the legislatures. Any large project the government undertakes can be
tied up in courts for years, if a few people want to take the trouble. Many
actions of governments can be similarly held up. Problem is that there are so
many judges, and it only takes one.
> (j) The Little Guy.
Forget it.
>(4) Do you think there is a lot of persuit of Perjury changes in the justice
system today?
No. Perjury is almost impossible to prove, unless somebody testifies one thing
at one time and a contradiction at another.
> the truth can prevail in the courts without persuit of Perjury for those
> who lie and manufacture "evidence"?
Yes, it can and it does, usually. Determining the truth is left to the jury,
with whatever help cross-examination can give them. My impression is that
juries can generally discount liars and manufactured evidence. There are
exceptions, of course, but I don't think changing the system would help much.
>(5) If all laws were perfect and the courts and lawyers were all perfect
> (optimized for the 90's) EXCEPT for one thing -- that the truth and the
> facts were not validated -- what do you think the outcomes of cases would
> be? If "mistakes" were made how would that get recognized?; how would
> society learn about it?
You mean, if juries were not allowed to weigh credibility? Then I can't imagine
how any jury could decide anything.
>(6) What do you think cameras in the courtroom would do for the pursuit of
> truth, and the accountablity of our lawyers, courts, and system of justice?
For routine trials, they seem to do nothing but fill air time on cable. Hardly
anybody would watch most trials. For celebrity trials, they seem to lead to
grandstanding and obfuscation.
>(7) Do you think that the O.J. Trial probably showed gave us a view of The
> Best things can be in the justice system or The Worst in terms of the
> persuit of truth? Do you think taking away most of the money, publicity,
> and cameras would have resulted in more or less persuit of truth?
Certainly not the best, and I'm afraid it was not the worst.
More pursuit of truth.
>(9) Ever hear the saying "in war the winner writes the history books"? What
> do you suppose are the implications of what that means?
On this topic, not much. Both the winners and the losers get to write books.
Look at Sacco and Vanzetti, Dreyfus or Charles Manson.
Although by what I hear, big trial publicity saturates the market. Those
megabuck book deals don't seem to be materializing.
|
| 203.12 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Tue Jan 09 1996 14:12 | 11 |
| .11 your #4 is most of us. When I was about to loose an apartment
building in Manchester, a laywer representing GE Capitol Mortgage comp
went up to all of the tenants in the building and told them to find
another place to move to asap cause the building was going back to the
bank... 18 months later it did... Where is the honesty and integrity
here? Looks to me like he wanted to break me before I had a chance to
pitch a plan. Looks like some honest lawyers get lost amonst the
rodents who pulled this little stunt. Sides, there is no breaks, no
help, no nutin if your trying to make a go at it. Unless your very very
rich, or poor, you can get breaks. If your the rest of us,,,... forget
it.
|
| 203.13 | | MKOTS3::RAUH | I survived the Cruel Spa | Tue Jan 09 1996 14:15 | 4 |
| The real trouble with lawyers are that the become polititions.:) And
then they really ruin it for us.:) The make some real wild laws that
will make you weap for a law that allows you to go hunting them, thin
out the species like any other animal that over produces its kind.:)
|