Justice System

Yurt said:
which country do you believe has the best justice system?

if none exists, describe your ideal judicial system.
Click to expand...

All justice systems are corrupt. An ideal one would be one run by the Church free of charge as it once was. I will elaborate tomorrow.
 
The Church only presided over Ecclesiastical matters. Secular matters such as theft and murder were handled in secular courts. The only time there was conflict was when a monk or clergyman committed a secular crime, and was protected by a rule that prevented them from being handed over to the secular authorities until the Ecclesiastical court had ruled against them and perhaps stripped them of their rank or status.
 
Yurt said:
which country do you believe has the best justice system?

if none exists, describe your ideal judicial system.
Click to expand...

an ideal justice system is impossible because it would cost too much

it would have to be coupled with a society where property crimes were not necessary and the justice system could focus on crimes where violence is done against a person(s) - in this i include fraud as an act of violence
 
Don Quixote said:
an ideal justice system is impossible because it would cost too much

it would have to be coupled with a society where property crimes were not necessary and the justice system could focus on crimes where violence is done against a person(s) - in this i include fraud as an act of violence
Click to expand...

why would you abolish property crimes? and how would the ideal system cost too much?
 
Yurt said:
why would you abolish property crimes? and how would the ideal system cost too much?
Click to expand...
because the socialist/communist concept is that property belongs to all of us. not any one individual. thus there can be no property crime if it belongs to all of us.
 
Voltaire;993977]I think I sort of prefer the civil law system to the common law one used in most of the US. Less room for ambiguity, and much less emphasis on lawyers.
Click to expand...

actually, common law is not the norm anymore. most states, have codified laws now. common law as well as MPC law both rely on lawyers the same. i don't know why you think there is a difference.


The adversarial system is flawed in putting so much faith in the idea that the truth can necessarily be arrived at through competitive arguments. Sure, the stronger case will be the easier to argue, and so will tend to prevail, but that's not always the case. On a global level, when arguing between two ideas in a democracy, you can choose the best arguments from a great deal of people, who will, again, tend to be more intellectually equal. But between two random people in a courtroom? There's simply too much noise. Plus, as we've seen time and time again, rich people can simply through money at the issue, purchase the best minds in the field, and successfully argue a much weaker position. A major league baseball team can easily beat my local high schools team, even with a significant handicap.
Click to expand...

without the adversarial system, you would only have a system where the rich prevail every time. but i'm curious as to your viewpoint....so two random people in court - let's make it a contract dispute. how would you resolve it without the adversarial system? and i'm purposefully leaving out whether the contract is in writing.


As for the civil system*, I honestly don't see why we use jury trials in it. Are we really justified in forcibly compelling people to resolve these private disputes? And besides, we're often calling on them to decide complicated technical cases in which they have no expertise and are in no way qualified to judge. Plus, they are infamously stupid in deciding awards. Oftentimes, they apparently do little other than to arbitrarily choose a middle value, like in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. In any rational judgement she should've been given around the minimum penalty of $700 per work, because the ludicrous maximum of 200k or so per work was only codified into the law to deal with commercial pirates who'd take one work and copy it thousands of times to sell for profit. If trading a single copy of a work is not the minimum violation of the law, what on Earth is? Then you have juries that take it upon themselves to award someone the lottery, giving out ridiculous punitive damages. IMO, plaintiffs should only receive compensation. Punitive awards are really more of a criminal deterrent than anything, and I don't see why the plaintiff should profit off of this. It should be given to the government as fines, or collected and distributed as a tax rebate.
Click to expand...

you have a very good point about modern cases and juries. this is a huge issue in the legal world. not so much in criminal matters, but in civil matters that you speak of. most states are moving towards alternative resolution in which the courts have the power to force the parties in to mediation and in some cases arbitration. i agree with you about complex cases, however, jury verdicts can be overturned. i would be remiss if we abolished the jury system. without it, we give too much power to the state (king if you will) to decide cases. juries are not experts, however, it is the responsibility of the attorneys to educate them as much as possible.
*That is, the system of resolving private conflicts between individuals and businesses, not the confusingly named system of civil criminal law used pretty much everywhere in the world that's not a former British colony, which I was talking about earlier.[/QUOTE]
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I trust you're not talking the inquisition, right?
Click to expand...

No not the Inquisition. I'm talking about way before that. Where the local priests/ministers would deal with disputes in the community(FOR FREE). Sometimes they would appeal to the King if it was a serious mater that could not be resolved. Only if you were found guilty would you have to pay a fine or be punished.

Later the pagan powers took over the courts.
 
Watermark said:
The Church only presided over Ecclesiastical matters. Secular matters such as theft and murder were handled in secular courts. The only time there was conflict was when a monk or clergyman committed a secular crime, and was protected by a rule that prevented them from being handed over to the secular authorities until the Ecclesiastical court had ruled against them and perhaps stripped them of their rank or status.
Click to expand...

nevermind.
 
wiseones2cents said:
No not the Inquisition. I'm talking about way before that. Where the local priests/ministers would deal with disputes in the community(FOR FREE). Sometimes they would appeal to the King if it was a serious mater that could not be resolved. Only if you were found guilty would you have to pay a fine or be punished.

Later the pagan powers took over the courts.
Click to expand...

"Pagan powers'? Such as?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top