We Need a New Legal System

[Argus]

There is almost no one out there, other than lawyers, who doesn't believe our present legal system is overly complex, overly expensive, and hideously time-consuming. No one really understands it, not even the people who go to law school and spend years studying it, not even after they've been practicing it for years, not even when they're made judges. If that weren't true, how could we have cases where a judge makes a finding, gets reversed by a higher level judge, then that gets reversed again above him?

Why is law so complicated? Why does it have to be? Why can't it consist of some basic, clearly stated principles of justice and prohibitions? The Criminal Code, though wordy, is actually reasonably clear in its prohibitions and punishments. The Charter of Rights is also reasonably clear in its statements. But where trials become complex is the vast web of often arcane constitutional principles built up over years and decades of trials, often judge-written changes to the written constitution, principles no one but a lawyer can hope to understand.

The result of this hideous complexity is that lawyers can charge a fortune for their services, thus placing real justice out of the hands of ordinary Canadians and rendering the application of law so expensive that it beggars society to provide enough court rooms and legal practitioners to fill them.

Trials can take many, many months to run their course. Some take years, depending on the depths of the wallet of the litigants. This is something which has been getting progressively worse over the decades to the point we hardly recognize it now, and have resigned ourselves to the ludicrous inefficiencies of the judicial system. And why not? It's not like there is any big push to reform it except in minor matters, the changing of a phrase here or a sentence there. And why would there be? The people most intimately involved in law are the ones who directly benefit from its complexity; lawyers.

We talk about other health care systems which function better than ours. I wonder that there aren't talking about, or that we haven't heard of, other legal systems, other judicial systems, which function far better than the one we inherited from the English. I wonder if we wouldn't do well to study the system of German Civil Law, or how the law functions in Switzerland or the nordic countries, or even whether we should have a go at re-inventing law. After all, legal systems designed centuries ago might simply no longer be flexible enough for the present.

Ideally, law should be fairly obvious to all, and trials, be they civil or criminal, would be quick and not particularly expensive. The overriding principle of any law or system of laws ought to be fundamental justice as seen by our society.

[Wilber]

The legal industry gets to interpret the rules and those interpretations become the law. It is in their own best interest to make them as complex as possible.

[Oleg Bach]

Big buisness control the judicary and the policy set out is that of those that appoint them.

[RB]

There is almost no one out there, other than lawyers, who doesn't believe our present legal system is overly complex, overly expensive, and hideously time-consuming. No one really understands it, not even the people who go to law school and spend years studying it...

The law seem to be complex because it allows for broad interpretation and wide principles - every one is given a chance....well pick your lawyer

If the law was black and white - a lot o' good men would be hang.

[Wilber]

The law seem to be complex because it allows for broad interpretation and wide principles - every one is given a chance....well pick your lawyer

If the law was black and white - a lot o' good men would be hang.

If you can afford one long enough to navigate the maze that is our system. No one would hang, we abolished capital punishment. That much at least is black and white.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Maybe it's just me but the laws don't seem all that complicated.

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe it's just me but the laws don't seem all that complicated.

The law as most assume deals with moral and immoral questions - where as you would expect goodness to be the victor---it is not that way..The law is about meeting a certain end for certain people - It does not serve society but serves a small segment of society..which is not usually the average guy...take that quasi system called SMALL CLAIMS COURT.. eg - a poor woman signs an immoral contract..with an appliance dealer ..they strike up a deal where there is a payment plan - the woman ends up paying..five thousand dollars for a one thousand dollar item..she stops payment.

The dealer sends a representative in to small claims court and more money is demanded..The judge - a second rate lawyer that could not get a job in a good firm....grants a garnishment of the womans pay cheque.. The dealer manages to squeeze out another thousand dollars out of the woman - she has to quit her job in order to avoid this vampire. That is called law - it serves even the lowest of the status quo..but not YOU>

[Argus]

The law seem to be complex because it allows for broad interpretation and wide principles - every one is given a chance....well pick your lawyer

These are the ironic words of a Sir William Maule, a judge in seventheenth century England sentencing a man for bigamy.

… I will tell you what you ought to have done; You ought to have instructed your attorney

to bring an action against the seducer of your wife for criminal conversation [an action for

damages based upon adultery]. That would have cost you about a hundred pounds. When

you had obtained judgment for (though not necessarily actually recovered) substantial

damages against him, you should have instructed your proctor [a lawyer practising in

the ecclesiastical courts] to sue in the Ecclesiastical Courts for a divorce a mensa et

thoro. That would have cost you two hundred or three hundred pounds more. When you had

obtained a divorce a mensa et thoro, you should have appeared by counsel before the House of

Lords in order to obtain a private Act of Parliament for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii

which would have rendered you free and legally competent to marry the person whom

you have taken on yourself to marry with no such sanction. The Bill might possibly have

been opposed in all its stages in both Houses of Parliament, and together you would have

had to spend about a thousand or twelve hundred pounds. You will probably tell me

that you have never had a thousand farthings of your own in the world; but, prisoner, that

makes no diference. Sitting here as an English Judge, it is my duty to tell you that this is not a

country in which there is one law for the rich and one for the poor.

[dre]

Probably about 1/2 the legal system or more is centered around victimless crime.

Ending prohibition of recreational drugs would not only shrink the legal system by more than half it would have a positive impact on society in general.

Heres a good case study that dispells a lot of the myths spread by the pro-criminalization crowd.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

When ALL drugs were decriminalized in portugal...

Drug use among ALL age groups DECLINED.

HIV infections among all age groups DECLINED.

Deaths from drug use DECLINED.

And the number of those recieving treatment went THROUGH THE ROOF.

use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well

System of a Down set it best...

All research and successful drug policy shows

That treatment should be increased,

And law enforcement decreased,

While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences,

All research and successful drug policy shows

That treatment should be increased,

And law enforcement decreased,

While abolishing mandatory minimum sentences.

Utilizing drugs to pay for secret wars around the world,

Drugs are now your global policy,

Now you police the globe,

I buy my crack, my smack, my bitch,

Right here in Hollywood,

Drug money is used to rig elections,

And train brutal corporate sponsored

Dictators around the world.

They're trying to build a prison

They're trying to build a prison,

They're trying to build a prison,

They're trying to build a prison, (for you and me to live in)

Another prison system,

Another prison system,

Another prison system. (for you and me)

For you and I, for you and I , for you and I.

They're trying to build a prison,

They're trying to build a prison,

They're trying to build a prison,

For you and me,

Oh baby, you and me.

[DrGreenthumb]

There is almost no one out there, other than lawyers, who doesn't believe our present legal system is overly complex, overly expensive, and hideously time-consuming. No one really understands it, not even the people who go to law school and spend years studying it, not even after they've been practicing it for years, not even when they're made judges. If that weren't true, how could we have cases where a judge makes a finding, gets reversed by a higher level judge, then that gets reversed again above him?

Why is law so complicated? Why does it have to be? Why can't it consist of some basic, clearly stated principles of justice and prohibitions? The Criminal Code, though wordy, is actually reasonably clear in its prohibitions and punishments. The Charter of Rights is also reasonably clear in its statements. But where trials become complex is the vast web of often arcane constitutional principles built up over years and decades of trials, often judge-written changes to the written constitution, principles no one but a lawyer can hope to understand.

The result of this hideous complexity is that lawyers can charge a fortune for their services, thus placing real justice out of the hands of ordinary Canadians and rendering the application of law so expensive that it beggars society to provide enough court rooms and legal practitioners to fill them.

Trials can take many, many months to run their course. Some take years, depending on the depths of the wallet of the litigants. This is something which has been getting progressively worse over the decades to the point we hardly recognize it now, and have resigned ourselves to the ludicrous inefficiencies of the judicial system. And why not? It's not like there is any big push to reform it except in minor matters, the changing of a phrase here or a sentence there. And why would there be? The people most intimately involved in law are the ones who directly benefit from its complexity; lawyers.

We talk about other health care systems which function better than ours. I wonder that there aren't talking about, or that we haven't heard of, other legal systems, other judicial systems, which function far better than the one we inherited from the English. I wonder if we wouldn't do well to study the system of German Civil Law, or how the law functions in Switzerland or the nordic countries, or even whether we should have a go at re-inventing law. After all, legal systems designed centuries ago might simply no longer be flexible enough for the present.

Ideally, law should be fairly obvious to all, and trials, be they civil or criminal, would be quick and not particularly expensive. The overriding principle of any law or system of laws ought to be fundamental justice as seen by our society.

I't be one thing was equal before the law, the main problem with our legal system is that those with money can buy their way out of trouble. If the rich had the same chance of conviction in court as the poor, they would be less likely to be so "tough on crime". They just know that they will escape punishment in most cases of drug possession etc because they can buy THEIR way out or THEIR kid's way out,etc.

[maple_leafs182]

we don't just need a new legal system, we need a brand new social system all together.

[Michael Hardner]

we don't just need a new legal system, we need a brand new social system all together.

Do tell... lament... opine... while away the time in Dylan-esque dirges... indeed in 1960 it worked and a generation changed how they saw 'the system'.

But on this board we tend to talk about specifics. Let's focus on how to bring about change.

I, for one, am looking for a way to have people demand performance statistics for public services. Not sexy, not dreamy, not your mushroom-fueled utopia but if people only paid attention to a boring statistic or two, lives would be improved.

[Army Guy]

When ALL drugs were decriminalized in portugal...

Drug use among ALL age groups DECLINED.

HIV infections among all age groups DECLINED.

Deaths from drug use DECLINED.

And the number of those recieving treatment went THROUGH THE ROOF.

I find it hard to beleive that drug users actually quit taking drugs because they where made legal "nope ain't smoking crack anymore it's legal"....makes you wonder why they are doing the drug in the first place....getting high or breaking the law...

How do HIV rates go down, unless the government is suppling needles and clean equipment to use, a program which i believe is already ongoing here in Canada is it not ? It's still not going to stop those to poor to purchase the drugs from the government from selling themselfs is it ?

Providing a cleaner or better product could explain the drop in death rates...but it is not going to stop deaths altogether misuse is still going to happen.

I don't buy into that thinking just make it legal and the problem will go away...shit lets make murder legal, or rape, or for that matter all laws maybe there will be a large drop in our crime rates....does'nt mean it is going to make being a citizen any fun, but we will have low crime rates...I thought having laws was to protect the citizens...how is making crack, herion or any drug legal protecting us.

[eyeball]

Do tell... lament... opine... while away the time in Dylan-esque dirges... indeed in 1960 it worked and a generation changed how they saw 'the system'.

But on this board we tend to talk about specifics. Let's focus on how to bring about change.

I, for one, am looking for a way to have people demand performance statistics for public services. Not sexy, not dreamy, not your mushroom-fueled utopia but if people only paid attention to a boring statistic or two, lives would be improved.

I wonder if Sheila Fraser thinks along similar lines? Her search seems to have fueled a mushroom-clouded dystopia.

[dre]

I find it hard to beleive that drug users actually quit taking drugs because they where made legal "nope ain't smoking crack anymore it's legal"....makes you wonder why they are doing the drug in the first place....getting high or breaking the law...

How do HIV rates go down, unless the government is suppling needles and clean equipment to use, a program which i believe is already ongoing here in Canada is it not ? It's still not going to stop those to poor to purchase the drugs from the government from selling themselfs is it ?

Providing a cleaner or better product could explain the drop in death rates...but it is not going to stop deaths altogether misuse is still going to happen.

I don't buy into that thinking just make it legal and the problem will go away...shit lets make murder legal, or rape, or for that matter all laws maybe there will be a large drop in our crime rates....does'nt mean it is going to make being a citizen any fun, but we will have low crime rates...I thought having laws was to protect the citizens...how is making crack, herion or any drug legal protecting us.

I find it hard to beleive that drug users actually quit taking drugs because they where made legal "nope ain't smoking crack anymore it's legal"....makes you wonder why they are doing the drug in the first place....getting high or breaking the law...

How do HIV rates go down, unless the government is suppling needles and clean equipment to use, a program which i believe is already ongoing here in Canada is it not ? It's still not going to stop those to poor to purchase the drugs from the government from selling themselfs is it ?

Youre emloying the broken "conventional wisdom" of the failed war on drugs.

Drug use went down because instead of throwing people in jail they helped them get treatment. Incarceration is an absolutely horrible way to treat drug addiction, and it almost never works. This is countries like the US and Canada that spend zillions on the failed war on drugs generally have among the highest rates of drug use.

If you decriminalize that activity and bring it out into the open then a lot of the problems go away and a lot people get treatment for their problems.

how is making crack, herion or any drug legal protecting us.

How does criminalization of those things help us? It creates a massive cash engine thats used to fuel organized crime, human trafficing, sexual slavery, extortion etc. It results in some of the highest rates of drug use on earth. Throwing recreational drug users in jail does the exact opposite of protecting us and instead it often makes them into more dangerous criminals by exposing them to a network of real criminals.

[Remiel]

I wonder if Sheila Fraser thinks along similar lines? Her search seems to have fueled a mushroom-clouded dystopia.

When I first read this, I thought, " What does any of this have to do with nuclear bombs? "

[maple_leafs182]

Do tell... lament... opine... while away the time in Dylan-esque dirges... indeed in 1960 it worked and a generation changed how they saw 'the system'.

But on this board we tend to talk about specifics. Let's focus on how to bring about change.

I, for one, am looking for a way to have people demand performance statistics for public services. Not sexy, not dreamy, not your mushroom-fueled utopia but if people only paid attention to a boring statistic or two, lives would be improved.

The problem is democracy doesn't work, it divides us, keeps us arguing while the real issues go unresolved. I'm not pro communism or anything but I do know democracy doesn't work, we need to develop a new system that caters to all the people not just the group in power at the time.

As for an economy, we don't need it. The economy isn't real, it is just an idea people a long time ago thought up. We now bow down before it like it is a god.

We are about to forgo a terrible economic downturn, the standard of living will go down for so many, why, I guess we angered the economy, are we crazy. We are the wealth of this planet, not dollar bills or bricks of gold.

I'm just going to go on a little rant here now. Look at oil companies, they virtually can control entire economies simply by controlling the fuel that literally fuels the economy. In my books dependency is a form a slavery.

[Army Guy]

Youre emloying the broken "conventional wisdom" of the failed war on drugs.

Drug use went down because instead of throwing people in jail they helped them get treatment. Incarceration is an absolutely horrible way to treat drug addiction, and it almost never works.

So help me understand how this new wisdom works, we make ALL illigal substances legal, who produces these substances and controls them ...it would have to be our government, which leaves this question How does this help drug users, Yes i get the fact it would be a regulated industry safer drugs would be produced and delivered but how does that deter druggies from using....

Providing more treatment , i thought there was already treatment centers , free needle campaigns , etc etc etc...out there...funded by tax payers, are you saying there is not enough ....

As for locking them up, i thought the problem was that the prisons themselfs have major drug problems...getting drugs in prison is not a problem, so why quit in prison....perhaps the answer is to provide more funding to our prison centers to provide a 100 % lock down no drugs no problem....trating an addiction with no access should be easier....

This is countries like the US and Canada that spend zillions on the failed war on drugs generally have among the highest rates of drug use.

Highest reported use, i've been to some of the worlds shit holes and it seems the entire country is on some sort of drug or another...

If you decriminalize that activity and bring it out into the open then a lot of the problems go away and a lot people get treatment for their problems.

Not true, all one has to do is look at smokes, high taxes and prices have made a massive market for illigal smokes spawning a entire industry of black market or smuggled smokes.... Criminals will always make a buck they adapt and survive like they always do....

Our government makes bils on taxes from smokes, and yes they do make companies put those warnings and labels on them it has not detered all of us from dropping the deadly habit....infact i'm sure we spend more on treating people from smoking illinesses than we make from the taxes we earn from them....so why did we make the legal....and what proof do you have we as a nation will be better off by making drugs legal....

Drugs are a personal choice, in most cases, where there is a market then there will be a damand, and the criminal element will provide that....and while i do agree with you that perhaps the war on drugs is not effective...i don't think providing drugs on a silver platter is the ticket either....

How does criminalization of those things help us? It creates a massive cash engine thats used to fuel organized crime, human trafficing, sexual slavery, extortion etc. It results in some of the highest rates of drug use on earth. Throwing recreational drug users in jail does the exact opposite of protecting us and instead it often makes them into more dangerous criminals by exposing them to a network of real criminals.

It keeps the law abibing citizens away from drugs, like i said it is a choice and in our nation it's a bad one....that has consquences...legalization is not going to make the criminal element go away, they will adapt and overcome like they have aways done...like they did when booze went legal....

Recreational drug users are breaking the law, it's that simple i get a rush racing , but if i do it downtown and get caught i face the law....where i to if thrown in jail will be introduced to other criminals....

I don't thionk you've provided any proof that our nation will be better off producing and distributing drugs on the streets....

Policing , yes we will free up those working on anti drug enforcement operations , but then again who is going to control and regulate this new industry, and where is that manpower coming from....i mean now that crack is legal we can't have everyone in the neiborhood cooking it right....

I can just imagine what our new tourist trade will look like.

More treatment centers, like government did for booze and smokes....

What about the medical side of the house, we spend more tax funds on treating illinesses from smokes and booze than we collect in tax monies....it's not like we could export the stuff...

What do we use to deter first time users....

World opinion , is the world ready for a western nation to be a ALL drug legal nation....will we keep what little voice we have....

[maple_leafs182]

What about the people who want to do those drugs, shouldn't they have the right to live their lives the way they wish or are they forced to live under the mob's thumb. Do we still have that burn the witch mentality.

What do we use to deter first time users....

Nothing, educate on the dangers but let people make their own choices in life.

[Shwa]

I't be one thing was equal before the law, the main problem with our legal system is that those with money can buy their way out of trouble. If the rich had the same chance of conviction in court as the poor, they would be less likely to be so "tough on crime". They just know that they will escape punishment in most cases of drug possession etc because they can buy THEIR way out or THEIR kid's way out,etc.

Maybe it is time to consider Universal Judicial Care and place all lawyers on government retainers.

[Army Guy]

What about the people who want to do those drugs, shouldn't they have the right to live their lives the way they wish or are they forced to live under the mob's thumb. Do we still have that burn the witch mentality.

And just where do you draw the line, with having the right to live our lifes the way we want...I mean we are talking about ALL drugs here not just pot, most of them are dangerous, and have serious health issues.

Nothing, educate on the dangers but let people make their own choices in life.

For the most part that is what we do, however for variuos reasons some choices in life are already made for us.

[maple_leafs182]

And just where do you draw the line, with having the right to live our lifes the way we want...I mean we are talking about ALL drugs here not just pot, most of them are dangerous, and have serious health issues.

Lot's of things have serious health issues, alcohol kills more then all illegal drugs put together.

Let people live not just survive.

For the most part that is what we do, however for variuos reasons some choices in life are already made for us.

Because some people think they know how people should live their lives.

[Borg]

There is almost no one out there, other than lawyers, who doesn't believe our present legal system is overly complex, overly expensive, and hideously time-consuming. No one really understands it, not even the people who go to law school and spend years studying it, not even after they've been practicing it for years, not even when they're made judges. If that weren't true, how could we have cases where a judge makes a finding, gets reversed by a higher level judge, then that gets reversed again above him?

Why is law so complicated? Why does it have to be? Why can't it consist of some basic, clearly stated principles of justice and prohibitions? The Criminal Code, though wordy, is actually reasonably clear in its prohibitions and punishments. The Charter of Rights is also reasonably clear in its statements. But where trials become complex is the vast web of often arcane constitutional principles built up over years and decades of trials, often judge-written changes to the written constitution, principles no one but a lawyer can hope to understand.

The result of this hideous complexity is that lawyers can charge a fortune for their services, thus placing real justice out of the hands of ordinary Canadians and rendering the application of law so expensive that it beggars society to provide enough court rooms and legal practitioners to fill them.

Trials can take many, many months to run their course. Some take years, depending on the depths of the wallet of the litigants. This is something which has been getting progressively worse over the decades to the point we hardly recognize it now, and have resigned ourselves to the ludicrous inefficiencies of the judicial system. And why not? It's not like there is any big push to reform it except in minor matters, the changing of a phrase here or a sentence there. And why would there be? The people most intimately involved in law are the ones who directly benefit from its complexity; lawyers.

We talk about other health care systems which function better than ours. I wonder that there aren't talking about, or that we haven't heard of, other legal systems, other judicial systems, which function far better than the one we inherited from the English. I wonder if we wouldn't do well to study the system of German Civil Law, or how the law functions in Switzerland or the nordic countries, or even whether we should have a go at re-inventing law. After all, legal systems designed centuries ago might simply no longer be flexible enough for the present.

Ideally, law should be fairly obvious to all, and trials, be they civil or criminal, would be quick and not particularly expensive. The overriding principle of any law or system of laws ought to be fundamental justice as seen by our society.

I am sure a dozen legal brains - or those that think have one - would disagree with you. However, it is strange when a non-violent criminal can get many years for white collar crime and a sex offender can get a few months.

What was that woman's name - from Calgary - she shot her husband in the back - six times and basically walked on self defence?

Bring back the lash

Borg

[Oleg Bach]

We need a justice system, not a legalist system that is so complex that it becomes the santuary of scoundrels.

[maple_leafs182]

If we just starting working together we would solve a lot of crime and other problems that plague society.

If we made food and housing a right, we would solve poverty and a lot the crime associated with it which is quite a bit.

Why the hell is everyone so balls deep in having an economy and money. Money stops us from solving so many problems, why do we have to fund cancer research, why don't we just try and find a cure because a lot of people suffer from cancer and helping those people is the right thing to do. Why does money even come into play.

The only people I see truly benefiting from having money and an economy is the rich, they have millions of slaves to do the dirty work while they reap the benefits.

Man, we are lost now more then ever.