The middle class can't buy justice

[Scotty]

There was a big conference at the university of Toronto the other day, about the problem of a lack of access to the justice system for all but the rich and the poor. The poor get their legal bills paid for by government. The rich have no problems. The rest of us are shut out. A number of people, including the Chief Justice of Canada's Supreme Court spoke of their concern for this issue and possible repercussions for society.

A number of possible solutions were proposed, but I couldn't help note one that never made it into the paper. maybe it was proposed and simply not given much thought or time. Legal fees average $338 an hour. I wonder if lowering those fees might be an option to allow a more universal access to the legal system. For those short on math skills, $338 a DAY would translate into about an $85,000 salary. One can say that lawyers have put a lot of time into education but so has anyone with a masters degree or doctorate, and none I'm aware of can command those kinds of fees. Nor does it seem to take any particularly unique blend of skills and abilities to become a lawyer. Most of our politicians are lawyers and I think most of us are fairly unimpressed with the majority of them.

In other professions I'd suggest the government simply build up the law schools and graduate tons more lawyers. The more available, the less they can charge. But that doesn't seem to work with lawyers. The more lawyers there are the more work for lawyers there is. The US, which is said to have 2/3rds of all the layers in the world, has far more lawyers per capita than Europe, and yet they all seem to find work to do.

There is 1 lawyer for every 265 Americans. By contrast, there is one lawyer for every 593 Germans, and 1 lawyer for every 1500 Germans. So increasing the number of lawyers won't work. Increasing government funding won't work either. That will either jack up the fees of the existing lawyers higher, or create a demand for still more lawyers to e trained.

i think what is needed is either a government set limit on fees, or some way to disentangle most everyday legal problems from lawyers and judges and put them in front of arbitrators, perhaps with some sort of legal aid type person who isn't a lawyer providing help.

As Justice McLachlin says, by shutting out hte middle class from the legal system disrespect for the system, and vigilantism are encouraged.

The Globe and Mail

[bjre]

The system is there for take tax dollars, not for justice, protect yourself is your own duty.

[Moonbox]

It's really one of the biggest problems with North America. We're so politically correct, and so worried about saying or doing something wrong, that instead of making simple, rational judgements, we tip toe and discuss/litigate the issues to death. People end up terrified at the mere PROSPECT of lawyers getting involved and settle issues that they shouldn't settle. Scummy people take advantage of that.

[Scotty]

It's really one of the biggest problems with North America. We're so politically correct, and so worried about saying or doing something wrong, that instead of making simple, rational judgements, we tip toe and discuss/litigate the issues to death. People end up terrified at the mere PROSPECT of lawyers getting involved and settle issues that they shouldn't settle. Scummy people take advantage of that.

I think you're talking about something akin to "libel chill" wherein the cost of going through a lawsuit is so expensive that people give up just for being threatened with one. Or that they self censor for fear of a lawsuit, regardless of whether what they wanted to say, or do or write was entirely true and legal. Because in a lawsuit, given the costs and extensive consumption of time, even when you win, you lose.

Unless, of course, you are rich. But even big corporations adjust their quite legal and proper behavior for fear of lawsuits because legal costs adversely affect the bottom line.

[bloodyminded]

I think you're talking about something akin to "libel chill" wherein the cost of going through a lawsuit is so expensive that people give up just for being threatened with one. Or that they self censor for fear of a lawsuit, regardless of whether what they wanted to say, or do or write was entirely true and legal. Because in a lawsuit, given the costs and extensive consumption of time, even when you win, you lose.

Unless, of course, you are rich. But even big corporations adjust their quite legal and proper behavior for fear of lawsuits because legal costs adversely affect the bottom line.

Yes, you're right. But they're also wary of PR fiascos, especially if they're a service-based business.

A man in New Brunswick was recently killed on the job at Walmart. The investigation is ongoing, but it appears to have been faulty wiring in the cleaning machine he was using.

But whatever the reason for his death, I'd wager that Walmart will pay the family, out of court. If anyone is worried about their public image, it's that company. (And they are a bunch of assholes, to be fair to their critics.)

[guyser]

But whatever the reason for his death, I'd wager that Walmart will pay the family, out of court. If anyone is worried about their public image, it's that company. (And they are a bunch of assholes, to be fair to their critics.)

Walmart will have insurance pay them out.

[bloodyminded]

Walmart will have insurance pay them out.

Ah. Just so.

[Muddy]

Justice system! Surely you jest! We have a legal system. Not a Justice system.But you are right. Middle class hard working people are the worst treated in our Legal system.

[Smallc]

Justice system! Surely you jest! We have a legal system. Not a Justice system.

What does a statement like this even mean? We have a system of justice. Just doesn't mean severe penalty of what you thin if fair, either.

[Wilber]

What does a statement like this even mean? We have a system of justice. Just doesn't mean severe penalty of what you thin if fair, either.

I think that there is a lot of truth in that statement. Our legal system has morphed into an entity that operates to satisfy itself. Justice may or may not be a byproduct.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Wilber

[Smallc]

I think that there is a lot of truth in that statement. Our legal system has morphed into an entity that operates to satisfy itself. Justice may or may not be a byproduct.

Justice is a term though that we seem to take to mean what we think should happen. Without clear, denied legality, there can be no justice in a human system. You or I may not like the outcome, but that doesn't mean that the outcome isn't just.

[Wilber]

Justice is a term though that we seem to take to mean what we think should happen. Without clear, denied legality, there can be no justice in a human system. You or I may not like the outcome, but that doesn't mean that the outcome isn't just.

I'm not talking about outcomes. Our legal system is all about it's own procedures and precedents. Outcomes are secondary.

[Esq]

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/justicesystemreform_htm.htm

The poor get their legal bills paid for by government.

Only some types of court actions are eligible. Civil actions for instance are not.

The rich have no problems.

Except for having to pay for access to justice and a potential of years for resolution.

The rest of us are shut out.

Mostly everyone but lawyers are shut out.

A number of people, including the Chief Justice of Canada's Supreme Court spoke of their concern for this issue and possible repercussions for society.

A number of possible solutions were proposed, but I couldn't help note one that never made it into the paper. maybe it was proposed and simply not given much thought or time. Legal fees average $338 an hour. I wonder if lowering those fees might be an option to allow a more universal access to the legal system. For those short on math skills, $338 a DAY would translate into about an $85,000 salary. One can say that lawyers have put a lot of time into education but so has anyone with a masters degree or doctorate, and none I'm aware of can command those kinds of fees. Nor does it seem to take any particularly unique blend of skills and abilities to become a lawyer. Most of our politicians are lawyers and I think most of us are fairly unimpressed with the majority of them.

Its not legal fees it is needing a laywer and unreasonable delays -not enough judges and justices - and law that is absolutely absurd because it hasn't be consolidated in decades. it is a mess.

In other professions

That is the problem right there. Presenting information to a judge shouldn't be a profession, it should be what any literate - non infirm person should be capable of. natural law should be all encompasing of any national justice system.

I'd suggest the government simply build up the law schools and graduate tons more lawyers. The more available, the less they can charge. But that doesn't seem to work with lawyers. The more lawyers there are the more work for lawyers there is. The US, which is said to have 2/3rds of all the layers in the world, has far more lawyers per capita than Europe, and yet they all seem to find work to do.

There is 1 lawyer for every 265 Americans. By contrast, there is one lawyer for every 593 Germans, and 1 lawyer for every 1500 Germans. So increasing the number of lawyers won't work. Increasing government funding won't work either. That will either jack up the fees of the existing lawyers higher, or create a demand for still more lawyers to e trained.

i think what is needed is either a government set limit on fees, or some way to disentangle most everyday legal problems from lawyers and judges and put them in front of arbitrators, perhaps with some sort of legal aid type person who isn't a lawyer providing help.

As Justice McLachlin says, by shutting out hte middle class from the legal system disrespect for the system, and vigilantism are encouraged.

The Globe and Mail

http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/justicesystemreform_htm.htm

[Smallc]

I'm not talking about outcomes. Our legal system is all about it's own procedures and precedents. Outcomes are secondary.

Without those procedures and precedents, there can be no fairness and no justice in a system run by human beings.

[Wilber]

Without those procedures and precedents, there can be no fairness and no justice in a system run by human beings.

When the outcome is there just to satisfy procedures and precedents, fairness doesn't enter into it.

[Smallc]

When the outcome is there just to satisfy procedures and precedents, fairness doesn't enter into it.

The procedures and precedents are there to ensure fairness.

[Wilber]

X

The procedures and precedents are there to ensure fairness.

I think that was and still may be the intent but as soon as you base a system on procedure and precedent, everything else becomes secondary.

[cybercoma]

X

I think that was and still may be the intent but as soon as you base a system on procedure and precedent, everything else becomes secondary.

But the system is not entirely based on procedure and precedent. If that were the case, anyone would be able to represent themselves. All you would have to do is look up the precedent and procedure relating to your case and you would already know the outcome before you even got to court. In that case, there would be no disparity in "justice" between the rich and middle-class, it would all be a matter of procedure and precedence.

I don't believe that's true though. There is room for interpretive justice and judicial decision-making. Not even the best lawyer can tell you with absolute certainty the outcome of a trial before it happens. There's much, much more to jurisprudence than simply following formulas.

[Bonam]

The procedures and precedents are there to ensure fairness.

I think you understand the point that is being made even if you don't want to agree with it. When the people operating a system are so focused on following the exact steps of some procedure, proceeding according to some formula, repeating what has been done before, that they fail to see anything else besides the steps of their procedure... well, a lot of things can go wrong. You know, missing the forest for the trees. Yes, the procedures are there to ensure fairness (among other reasons), in theory, but that is not always their effect.

That's one problem with our justice system. Another problem is that it gets progressively more complex over time. With every significant case that is concluded, another precedent is set, and that can then be referred to in future cases. And, more laws are constantly introduced or existing laws modified. The language of these laws becomes ever more specialized. By its very nature, such a system can only become more and more time consuming and more and more incomprehensible to a non-professional over time.

There needs to be some mechanism to periodically "reboot" or "re-simplify" the system, or at least to review it and clean out all the trash. Unfortunately, there not being such a mechanism, our system can only grow exponentially more complex and expensive over time.

[Smallc]

There needs to be some mechanism to periodically "reboot" or "re-simplify" the system, or at least to review it and clean out all the trash.

Pardon my ignorance, but why should there be? Our civilization hasn't rebooted or become simpler. Why should the system by which we legally organize ourselves do that? We as a society are very complex, and we become more so over time. That reality can't be ignored by the legal system, and so previous judgements and situations must be considered in any future judgements.

There's nothing simple about life.

[Bonam]

That reality can't be ignored by the legal system, and so previous judgements and situations must be considered in any future judgements.

For how long? Why must they be considered? Why should a decision made about something, say, 60 years ago, or 300 years ago, hold weight today? Why should it not be up to the judge and/or jury to decide anew, independent of that past decision? Presumably the judge presiding today is as competent (on average) as the judges of times past, why is he/she not qualified to decide for himself like that past judge was?

[Smallc]

For how long? Why must they be considered? Why should a decision made about something, say, 60 years ago, or 300 years ago, hold weight today? Why should it not be up to the judge and/or jury to decide anew, independent of that past decision?

Because that isn't the legal system we have. Our system considers the history of decisions in order to ensure fairness in those decisions. Newer decisions, of course, hold more weight, but to just suddenly disregard past decisions does anything but ensure fairness. There is, of course, much leeway within precedent, but only so much.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Smallc

[Esq]

Because that isn't the legal system we have. Our system considers the history of decisions in order to ensure fairness in those decisions. Newer decisions, of course, hold more weight, but to just suddenly disregard past decisions does anything but ensure fairness. There is, of course, much leeway within precedent, but only so much.

This isn't true. A judge can determine that a determination is not applicable or errored.

No event is eqaul. Some elements may be the same, but a judgement should be sound, and need not be applied if not applicable to the determination.

Precedent is only used to generalized rulings.. but hyper legalize is a problem in the court system.

The status quo ante is not static.

There are new laws and new events.

Fact is that the constitution has been destroyed by Governments like the current one, and in this respect justice is a show.

Many of the very laws used to present precedent are constutional violations.

They violate human rights and deprive ancient rights.

That is the problem.. even the very basis of Canada has been destroyed by the governments unwillingness to allow Canadians to be British Subjects.

The basis of the courts are thrown to sunders by the notion that the Canadians are not British Subjects.

Yet if Canadians are Equal and Free no one shall judge a person but they themself.. and all will have equal powers in law, or justice.

All that remains is lies corruption of freedom and tyranny.

The precendent set is slavery and abomination.

and I spit on that!

Edited February 12, 2011 by Esq

[Smallc]

This isn't true. A judge can determine that a determination is not applicable or errored.

I said that there is some leeway, but often, if too much is taken, a higher court will overrule the decision.

[Esq]

I said that there is some leeway, but often, if too much is taken, a higher court will overrule the decision.

a judge has as much leeway as they like -- a court can overturn it if it is supravires.. same junk.. just people trying to put it on someone else.

Elements of judicial process:

1. Say stuff...

2. See if people follow the stuff.

end.

there is judicial rule for you.

Police administration:

1. Who is complaining - someone else or me...

2. Do stuff... ( do I want to do something?, can I do something without getting into trouble?)

3. have a couple days before I need to let them go or get permission to get long term housing.

Edited February 12, 2011 by Esq