The US Legal System - Does It Have ANY Value?

Besides for the lawyers and criminals that is. There have always been a number or serious questions that I cannot answer for myself such as:

Should our system be charged with determining guilt and innocence?
Do the guilty deserve to be able to use the system to escape justice?
Has the lawyer's abilities to argue either side effectively, eliminated any hope of find out the truth of any situation, or is there no such thing as truth, only winning and losing arguments?

I have had much involvement within the legal system having served on our Township Committee, and for those of us who have seen the beast from the inside, the amounts of cash that is spent on legal costs is staggering even on a small town basis. Lawsuits are constantly filed, settlements are constantly made, and documentation piles high at great cost to taxpayers with little to no protection from litigation or additional legal expenses. Has the remora grown bigger than the shark can sustain? Is there any hope for the system, or have I just experienced too much and need to drink more and talk less?

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

For the citizens, no.

Lawyers (and laws) only exist to facilitate the movement of wealth from the many to the few.
They are the second lowest level on the path to politics, doing the grunt work of manipulating the system to extort funds.

Right below them? The enforcers, who go around writing tickets and arresting/shooting people.

Above them? Low level politicians, who work to change the laws for their own benefit, rather than the lawyers who just distort the meaning of the laws.

It's a # show, top to bottom.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Actually you touched on it in your title. That's the problem with US justice system it has a value. And whatever defendant has the most money can purchase that value. It is completely broken for people that can't afford To hire a good defense.

When it was young and simple, it was a good system. Then the lawyers got hold of it and made it so complicated they become the gate keepers. And judges started to think they were the law instead of its arbiters.

It certainly has its flaws and in my opinion it can be influenced by money. If you have it, you can manipulate the system. There are far to many loopholes and twice as many interpretations. Throw politics into the mix and it has the makings of a perfect disaster. Justice might be blind, but she takes cash and credit.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

Whatever system there was, is now hopelessly choked with unjust and immoral laws.
Eliminate laws and eliminate the thugs that enforce them.
Eliminate the legal slavery that is the US incarceration system.

originally posted by: ketsuko
When it was young and simple, it was a good system. Then the lawyers got hold of it and made it so complicated they become the gate keepers. And judges started to think they were the law instead of its arbiters.

What are you talking about? The lawyers always had their hands on it. Lawyers wrote the Constitution for crying out loud...

I have been fortunate enough to have been able to do without lawyers myself and have been able to defend myself in court in cases of traffic violations, lawsuit, and divorce. In fact, in divorce court 20 years ago I was the only one without a lawyer. I wish I had a video of all of the other couples faces when the judge, noting that I was unrepresented, voluntarily offered to ask me the "magic questions" like who I was, did I live there, was this my wife, etc, etc, etc. When the judge ended our case and rapped her gavel, I turned and exited the building and saw open mouthed husbands and wives staring unbelievably at each other and then their lawyers, wondering why I got off without having to pay thousands to someone to read me the magic questions when they all did. I suppose we engineers are a dangerous group to the lawyers. Personally I believe they are way over employed and will eventually destroy the proverbial Goose in their lust for Golden Eggs.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

A system that requires one to hire someone else to speak on your behalf and is written so the average person cannot understand....should join with the tax laws and be overhauled.

I suppose I have had clues as to how this would work out many long years ago. In discussions where wages and salaries were concerned, a vast majority of the people I have talked to over the decades were always of the opinion that if they could write their own paychecks they would be in the millions or that the companies that we worked for should all pay them six or seven figure salaries regardless of their actual worth. To me, this indicates that way too many people are simply just too greedy and have no clue whatsoever how monetary system work or are supposed to work.

Our legal system has been in the Catbird's seat for many decades now, what with the political class being pretty much nothing but "Barflies" and it appears that if a lawyer can simply write the correct words on paper that allow them to take all you have if they get the wording right, why then we are all screwed. Greed and power are a deadly combination aren't they?

How do you view society would progress without the current legal system?

As for improvements to the legal system the general culture does tend to move very slowly. The different standards of law depending on money is just the same as every other aspect in social interdependence, healthcare, education, housing and so on.

The high rates of US incarceration does indicate population pressures, similar to how England use to lock you up for stealing a loaf of bread for just being poor, then send you overseas.

I do agree that the search for truth is paramount, along with appropriate rehabilitation. I do find it good that there is generally a lot of review to the overall process. In dealing with deception and uncertainty I can see how the adversarial approach has a place. How do we strengthen the impartiality?

When looking at the pecking order since 9/11, the courts are sitting below the military and the banks, and above minor government functions along with the general public.

originally posted by: kwakakev
How do you view society would progress without the current legal system?

As for improvements to the legal system the general culture does tend to move very slowly. The different standards of law depending on money is just the same as every other aspect in social interdependence, healthcare, education, housing and so on.

The high rates of US incarceration does indicate population pressures, similar to how England use to lock you up for stealing a loaf of bread for just being poor, then send you overseas.

I do agree that the search for truth is paramount, along with appropriate rehabilitation. I do find it good that there is generally a lot of review to the overall process. In dealing with deception and uncertainty I can see how the adversarial approach has a place. How do we strengthen the impartiality?

When looking at the pecking order since 9/11, the courts are sitting below the military and the banks, and above minor government functions along with the general public.

Before the take over by the legal system the rule of law was the right of might and was the exact reason that the legal system took over, to limit the violence, and it was a natural progression. The problem arose when the lawyers infiltrated the government to the point of monopoly. I would argue that the government of this nation was best when it was made up of many citizens of varying trades and backgrounds and had not yet devolved into a permanent, ruling class. As I stated earlier in this thread, humans cannot be entrusted with the ability to write their own paychecks because greed and stupidity will dominate their choices every time. I cannot foresee ANY solution but collapse for those who dominate now will NEVER loose their death grip on the nation's purse strings.

a reply to: BennyHavensOh

When Napoleon took over Europe it was not just him the men where fighting for, but what Napoleon was also fighting for, the Magna Carter with its rights of the citizen and rule of law. It is having strong bonds of community that makes the might, it is our team work that has dominated this planet.

As society grows, so does its complexities and intricacies. Losing a head of state creates a lot of confusion, right or wrong they do provide a final decision and direction. Lawyers, politicians, administrators, managers, so on have been going on for a long time and an important part of all big civilizations. Despite all the corruption, lies and mistakes, I do find most people do try to to the right thing most of the times.

a reply to: kwakakev

Most people do try to do the right thing, yes I agree, but most of our leaders in this nation do not I am convinced. I have had much elite training in leadership and the qualities of leaders. Your reference to Napoleon was far more appropriate to me then you could ever imagine for I have studied him, his campaigns and his actions extensively for decades. Yes his men fought for the greater good of the system or the nation, yet the Corsican Corporal in the end indulged himself far too royally as did his predecessors, and it is my opinion that this lead to his downfall. Inbred systems require fresh blood to be taken in to keep the sights of the machine on the common goal. Our system has become far too inbred, (Bush/Clinton '16), to have much of a future. I do admire your intellect and appreciate your input. Thank you.

More like, what value is U.S. Justice to the system? It's a total racket. The laws themselves are often unjust, and written to favor the few over the many. It is a losing battle for 90% of Americans, from civil to criminal cases. More and more laws seem to ignore the constitution, and those who enforce the law are corrupt and untrustworthy, from the cop on the street to the judge handing out the sentence. Hell, if you look at every agreement/contract you have to sign, it is written on their terms, and you really are mostly screwed.

A racket that generates a lot of money for the state and private sectors. It is a system, but there is no justice in it.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Well spoken. All I can add is:

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

I have found that population density is a large factor in how petty and ongoing the conflicts do get. When people are all crammed together there tends to be a lot more social interactions and tensions, just like with the animals on the factory farms. If it is getting too much maybe think about moving out of the city and to the county. There is a lot more space and freedom to exist without social interference.

a reply to: kwakakev

Yes indeed proven over time by sociologists everywhere. Jam too many rats in the cage, watch the chaos ensue. It is a shame that planning was never possible in societal development. It could have saved our masters the hard choices that they are in the middle of making as we speak, er I mean, type.

originally posted by: BennyHavensOh
Should our system be charged with determining guilt and innocence?
Do the guilty deserve to be able to use the system to escape justice?
Has the lawyer's abilities to argue either side effectively, eliminated any hope of find out the truth of any situation, or is there no such thing as truth, only winning and losing arguments?

Lets address those questions. Should our system be charged with determining innocence? The answer to that is a no, and it currently doesn't seek to do so. The system charges a person and then seeks to prove them guilty of that charge. It really doesn't matter if you committed that offense or not, in the courtroom it's not about what you know but about what you can prove. That is why the system determines guilty and not guilty and it is a very good basis on which to build a justice system.

Next, the guilty absolutely deserve a chance to defend themselves. You can't establish guilt until the case is heard in court. If you were to label someone guilty and therefore unable to further defend themselves before hearing from both sides and allowing a defense to examine the evidence, anyone could be convicted of anything at the whim of those in power.

Last, the ability of lawyers to argue either side is important. This is because a person often times has committed the action they're accused of. Even when the person is guilty however a defense lawyer can be effective. Law is very technical and while the person may have committed the offense in the spirit of the law it is possible to not be guilty according to the letter of the law.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: BennyHavensOh

A system that requires one to hire someone else to speak on your behalf and is written so the average person cannot understand....should join with the tax laws and be overhauled.

Why is this wrong? Let me give an example. Lets say child molestation is illegal and the plain language version is "sexually abusing a child is illegal". Now lets say person A is accused by person B. Person A says it wasn't abuse, it was an expression of love. Furthermore they state the person wasn't a child in their eyes but rather an autonomous person fully capable of reasoning, love, emotion, and consent. Person B says that's BS because their 5 year old child was just raped. You're at an impasse, how can this be judged fairly without technical definitions of sexual abuse and being a child?

The more you clarify something the more technical it becomes. Law is a system of logic, it's a lot like computer programming but for people. There are always logical loopholes and interpretations and that is where the lawyers step in. Arguing against lawyers is arguing against the validity of a system based on logic, and that doesn't work because informal language is by definition and it's nature imprecise.

a reply to: Aazadan

I understand that the system is the way it is and that it is supposed to give the guilty an opportunity to get away with their crimes, but I still have a moral issue there. I understand that morality has no place in the law and I say that isn't than a shame. These faults in the system have devolved it into the sham it is today were, just like in elections, they one who spends the most money always wins. Perhaps I am all alone on this one but that kind of a system isn't a system at all, it's a club, lie George Carlin would say, an we're not in it!

The system we have today is actually a "money talks and BS walk" system, or as the Bush family would say, the "Divine Right of Kings". And I am not here to fight it, I like the rest of the losers, simply accept it.