bjre Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 The justice that you're talking about is a very finicky concept. The legal system that we have is based on the idea that justice is shaped over time by treating each case similarly and fairly under the law. It isn't simply based on our feelings at the moment. LIE. Cops have more intention to attack/charge vulnerable people. TTC bus driver pictured texting and driving http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2011/01/28/ttc-bus-driver-texting545.html Police won't act on the photo which captured a TTC bus driver apparently texting while driving because a cop didn't see it.Since last October, the amendment to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act makes it illegal to talk, text, type, dial or e-mail using hand-held cellphones and other hand-held devices while behind the wheel. If caught, it could cost motorists $155. http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/01/28/17068926.html Quote "The more laws, the less freedom" -- bjre "There are so many laws that nearly everybody breaks some, even when you just stay at home do nothing, the only question left is how thugs can use laws to attack you" -- bjre "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson
Scotty Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 http://williamashley.info/SOCIAL/SP/justicesystemreform_htm.htm Only some types of court actions are eligible. Civil actions for instance are not. I believe you're mistaken there. As one example I posted earlier this week demonstrated. A woman took her former employer to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal for firing her. The woman was represented by a government paid lawyer. When the findings were appealed to the courts, she was again represented by a government lawyer. When the case went against her and she was ordered to pay $10,000 legal costs to her former boss, the Ontario government's legal assistance program paid it. In addition, my brother in law was harassed for years by his former crazy wife, who, on welfare, had government paid legal assistance. 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. I agree with you completely here. Keep the law simple and the rules simple and let people tell their stories to the judge. However, the law as it stands now requires researching precedents in order to cite them to the judge, along with other legal arguments based on precedent or based on a variety of laws, and the ordinary person wouldn't be expected to know enough to do that. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 The procedures and precedents are there to ensure fairness. Then they are failing. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 Because that isn't the legal system we have. Our system considers the history of decisions in order to ensure fairness in those decisions. No, it considers those previous decisions in order to base the existing decision on them, but if the previous decisions were unfair that is beside the point. And if the current decision is unfair, that also is beside the point. The law is the law. Fairness just isn't that important in the scheme of things as compared to interpretations of law. Give you an example. A few years back an emerging practice was for criminal fraudsters to sell the house right out from under people. They would pretend they owned it, take out a mortgage with a bank, and then walk away. Now according to the law at the time, that meant the bank owned the house. The fact this was fundamentally unfair and unjust under ANYONE'S interpretation was utterly irrelevant. The law said once the registration had been changed that was that. People were actually evicted from their homes because of this sort of thing. And it only stopped when the government changed the law. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 I think you missed something - I'm saying the system is fine the way it is. It can't be an accident that countries served by Common Law seem to do very well overall. That said, if you want a differen So you think the system is fine even though the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has openly stated that this system excludes just about everyone but the rich, and those fortunate enough to get government paid lawyers? The system is hideously expensive and time consuming in almost every way. Whether it's criminal trials which should be open and shut and over within an hour which drag on for months to lawsuits which bankrupt people and take years, whether it's injustice or lack of justice, whether it involves refugees who can bounce from one appeal to another for DECADES despite obviously having no legitimacy, people's freedom to speak being suppressed because of the cost of nuisance lawsuits, our system is NOT fine the way it is. Far from it. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 I completely disagree with that. For judges to become non professional puppets of the mob electorate who worry about nothing but the chance to keep their jobs would be the ultimate injustice. The common man doesn't have a place in the professional world. You don't think the average person wants justice, and would reward judges who give it? Or is it that you think the average person doesn't know what justice is? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 That doesn't even make any sense. But no, I don't think that elected officials should hold all power, because quite frankly, I trust the people, as a group, far less than anything else. People are idiots sometimes (or often). Then why do we have a justice system which insists on having ordinary people sit in judgment of all important cases - as jurors? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 The justice that you're talking about is a very finicky concept. The legal system that we have is based on the idea that justice is shaped over time by treating each case similarly and fairly under the law. It isn't simply based on our feelings at the moment. Nor is it based on fairness. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Smallc Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 Then why do we have a justice system which insists on having ordinary people sit in judgment of all important cases - as jurors? We don't. You have a choice to have a jury trial, but it isn't mandatory. Also, their decisions are guided by the judge. Quote
Scotty Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Posted February 12, 2011 We don't. You have a choice to have a jury trial, but it isn't mandatory. Also, their decisions are guided by the judge. You are temporizing. The point remains that though we call the judge 'judge' it is the jurors who make the decision as to who wins. But if you don't trust the ordinary people then why do you think they should be jurors? Why not just have the trained judge rule as to guilt or innocence, as to right or wrong, as to plaintiff or defendant in all cases? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
guyser Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) By the way, The middle class cant buy justice , neither can the rich, neither can the poor. And thats a good thing. Edited February 13, 2011 by guyser Quote
guyser Posted February 12, 2011 Report Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) You are temporizing. The point remains that though we call the judge 'judge' it is the jurors who make the decision as to who wins. Yes, they must unanimously agree. But if you don't trust the ordinary people then why do you think they should be jurors? Why not just have the trained judge rule as to guilt or innocence, as to right or wrong, as to plaintiff or defendant in all cases? The Judge instructs the jury ,gives them guidance and direction and sends them into a room to do their job. If they come out with some ridiculous verdict, the Judge can set aside the verdict and have the trial re-run. Seems there are some warped views on our legal system in this thread Edited February 12, 2011 by guyser Quote
guyser Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 No, it considers those previous decisions in order to base the existing decision on them, but if the previous decisions were unfair that is beside the point. And if the current decision is unfair, that also is beside the point. The law is the law. Fairness just isn't that important in the scheme of things as compared to interpretations of law. Judge can set any example aside. Why would a lawyer use something that was wrong? Give you an example. A few years back an emerging practice was for criminal fraudsters to sell the house right out from under people. They would pretend they owned it, take out a mortgage with a bank, and then walk away. Now according to the law at the time, that meant the bank owned the house. The fact this was fundamentally unfair and unjust under ANYONE'S interpretation was utterly irrelevant. The law said once the registration had been changed that was that. People were actually evicted from their homes because of this sort of thing. And it only stopped when the government changed the law. And the original owner gets the house back, happens plenty of times, sometiomes not. But it is not as describe Quote
Scotty Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 By the way, The middle class cant buy justice , neither can the rich, neither can the poor. And thats a good thing. It would be if it were true. Unfortunately, it's not. The rich can certainly buy justice. The middle class don't even have access to the system in which justice might be obtained. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 Yes, they must unanimously agree. The Judge instructs the jury ,gives them guidance and direction and sends them into a room to do their job. If they come out with some ridiculous verdict, the Judge can set aside the verdict and have the trial re-run. Seems there are some warped views on our legal system in this thread Now you are temporizing. There are only very limited circumstances in which a judge can set aside a jury verdict. The fact is the jurors, ordinary people, get to decide which of the stories told by the two sides they want to believe. They can be swayed by skilled lawyers far more easily than an experienced judge. So why do they get to make the decision as to who wins the case? Especially if regular people are generally pretty stupid, as small C suggests? Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Wilber Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) By the way, The middle class cant buy justice , neither can the rich, neither can the poor. And thats a good thing. I think the point is the middle class is the least able to access the system and therefore the least likely to see justice done. Edited February 13, 2011 by Wilber Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Scotty Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 (edited) Judge can set any example aside. Why would a lawyer use something that was wrong? And the original owner gets the house back, happens plenty of times, sometiomes not. But it is not as describe The law stated that when the new mortgage was registered that was that. People lost their houses over that, even though they had done nothing wrong. The law didn't care that it was fair or unfair. The law said the banks get the house because they gave a mortgage on it. That they gave the mortgage to fraudsters was apparently beside the point. Mortgage Fraud Edited February 13, 2011 by Scotty Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
guyser Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 It would be if it were true. Unfortunately, it's not. The rich can certainly buy justice. The middle class don't even have access to the system in which justice might be obtained. Then you dont have any clue about this I'm afraid. The rich can buy a better lawyer, but not justice. What you are saying is Judges are bought. Still gonna stick to that? Quote
Scotty Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 Then you dont have any clue about this I'm afraid. The rich can buy a better lawyer, but not justice. What you are saying is Judges are bought. Still gonna stick to that? Am I going to stick to a position you invented and gave to me? Uhm no. It's your position. You can attack or defend it as you wish. You can do both if that amuses you. It's really irrelevant to me. I have my own positions to discuss. I remember reading about the witch hunts for 'satanic cults' in the 80s. Supposedly there was this mass of Satan worshiping child molesters who were preying on every other daycare and preschool. Anyway, I saw a show on one such case in which about a dozen people or so were charged with child molesting. Whether they were guilty or innocent depended entirely on how much money they had. Those who had enough money to hire their own criminal defense lawyers were all acquitted. All those who were too poor, and had to rely on public defenders were convicted and got long sentences. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
guyser Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 Now you are temporizing.Yea, Im buying time There are only very limited circumstances in which a judge can set aside a jury verdict. The fact is the jurors, ordinary people, get to decide which of the stories told by the two sides they want to believe. They can be swayed by skilled lawyers far more easily than an experienced judge. So why do they get to make the decision as to who wins the case? Especially if regular people are generally pretty stupid, as small C suggests? Spend soime time in a court room, read some cases, because much of what you write is fundamentally wrong. The jury does no0t operate in a vacuum. They are coached , instructed and advised. If a lawyer makes some outrageous statement, the judge will not allow that to be used in deliberations, not to mention many facets of a case are not given to the jury since they are decidedd in chambers on admissability grounds or before the jury is called in. The jury can decide because they have the weight of the court and the judge to clarify complicated matters and make them understandable. Quote
guyser Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 I think the point is the middle class is the least able to access the system and therefore the least likely to see justice done. Agreed wilber , but the SC judge was saying we are moving that way, but I dont think we are there yet. What isnt getting expensive? We will always pay for the best we can afford. If my ass is on the line (or yours) you and I will fund it one way , come hell or high water. Quote
guyser Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 The law stated that when the new mortgage was registered that was that. People lost their houses over that, even though they had done nothing wrong. The law didn't care that it was fair or unfair. The law said the banks get the house because they gave a mortgage on it. That they gave the mortgage to fraudsters was apparently beside the point. Mortgage Fraud No it didnt It said if title "made it that far" it was deemed legal. Which is true. There are many cases whereby the owner got the house back and lived happily ever after. Stop the hyperbole Quote
guyser Posted February 13, 2011 Report Posted February 13, 2011 Am I going to stick to a position you invented and gave to me? Uhm no. I gave you ? oh lord..... here, in your own words.... The rich can certainly buy justice Ok, show me where a rich man paid off the judge, jury or reasonable fascimile. It's your position. You can attack or defend it as you wish. You can do both if that amuses you. It's really irrelevant to me. I have my own positions to discuss. Yes you do, but when the first position is shown to be categorically wrong, then what? The whole premise is BS. Sorry, but the facts here spell that out. I remember reading about the witch hunts for 'satanic cults' in the 80s. Supposedly there was this mass of Satan worshiping child molesters who were preying on every other daycare and preschool. Anyway, I saw a show on one such case in which about a dozen people or so were charged with child molesting. Whether they were guilty or innocent depended entirely on how much money they had. Those who had enough money to hire their own criminal defense lawyers were all acquitted. All those who were too poor, and had to rely on public defenders were convicted and got long sentences. I know exactly the case of which you speak. And....thanks for proving my point. No one bought justice, some bought a better lawyer. So, these cases of the 80's.....which one? The Mcmartin Day care case in Cali? All charges dismissed The Kern County Case? All overturned. Berard Beran case? Overturned. Bronx Five ? Waca ? Wee Care cases? all overturned. So much for All those who were too poor, and had to rely on public defenders were convicted and got long sentences. Quote
Scotty Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 No it didnt It said if title "made it that far" it was deemed legal. Which is true. There are many cases whereby the owner got the house back and lived happily ever after. Stop the hyperbole I'm not sure I know what you mean by "hyperbole". I made a statement of fact. You aren't disagreeing with it, only stating that in 'many cases' the owners got their houses back. Which is irrelevant. In every case I'm familiar with they retained their houses because the banks involved didn't want the bad publicity of taking an innocent person's house and NOT because any court cared that the law's application was fundamentally unjust. If you know of a single case where the courts refused to honour the law because of its unfairness, and thus refused to take a person's house please let me know. The remedies suggested in the cite, and which I recall from that period was that after the house was taken away and sold the previous owners could apply for restitution, a process which could take years. I used this an example that justice is simply not that important to the courts as compared to what the law says. The courts don't care about justice. They care about law and precedent. If the law and precedent call for injustice then that is what the legal system will serve up. Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Scotty Posted February 13, 2011 Author Report Posted February 13, 2011 I gave you ? oh lord..... here, in your own words.... Ok, show me where a rich man paid off the judge, jury or reasonable fascimile. Oh stop playing games. You can twist my words any way you wish but I'm not about to debate your own interpretation of them any further. And....thanks for proving my point. No one bought justice, some bought a better lawyer. I'll just leave that to stand on its own as I don't think it even needs a response. So, these cases of the 80's.....which one? The Mcmartin Day care case in Cali? All charges dismissed The Kern County Case? All overturned. Berard Beran case? Overturned. Bronx Five ? Waca ? Wee Care cases? all overturned. So much for Hmm, yes, the Kern case was overturned, after those involved had spent 11 years in prison. The Berard Beran case was overturned - 22 years later. In fact, though I hadn't intended it, these are also cases where fundamental justice was ignored by the courts. Some of the claims made against the accused were incredible and ridiculous, yet they were convicted regardless and given long sentences. However, the case I'm referring to was probably the Wenatchee child abuse prosecutions. Wiki Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.