Thread View: mod.legal
3 messages
3 total messages
Started by ASPDMM
Wed, 16 Jul 1986 19:33
BITNET mail follows
Author: ASPDMM
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1986 19:33
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1986 19:33
60 lines
3375 bytes
3375 bytes
I'm not personally familiar with the group HALT, and I'm not a lawyer - YET. However, I do have some feelings about those groups and I think I can speak for at least some members of the legal profession. The typical attitude the public bears toward lawyers is captured most effectively in a recent editorial by James Kirkpatrick (or is is Kilpatrick?). At any rate, speaking about the proposed Tort Reform legislation, he stated simply that the law needed to be changed, that lawyers were scum because they didn't want it changed, and that all lawyers were sitting around lining their pockets with the blood money of hapless injury clients. It would have been nice to hear what specifically needed to be changed, or why specifically the American Trial Lawyers Association objected to the legislation, but he stuck strictly to an ad hominum attack. I see not even a basis for a cogent argument there. Still, I suspect that 90% of all non-lawyers you might care to ask would agree, without anything more than a vague understanding why. It is roughly equivalent to blaming the undertaker because your loved one has died. Shakespeare once said, in Richard III I believe, "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"... and the Richard III mentality is still prevalent. I also object to the feeling that lawyers are responsible for the laws they work with. It would be just as sensible to blame doctors treating cancer patients for having created cancer. Lawyers work with law as it is, not as they wish it were. It is the duty of the citizenry to abolish those laws they find repugnant and enforce those they find agreeable. It is the job of the legal system to discern the intent of statutes and practice accordingly. If you want to reform the legal system, start with the law, not the legal profession. Finally, the entire legal profession, like any other, is subject to the pressures of those it serves. I am not saying that lawyers are blameless in the "legal tyranny" which darkens the profession. I do think, however, that it is encumbent upon every citizen to be informed about the law and work within it, or to refrain from participating entirely. Yes, that means that I would object to my considered vote in the electorate being cancelled out by someone who exercises the random method. Don't get me wrong, I am not directing that statement at you, but there are people whose knowledge of the workings of their government, including the law, is so dismal that, literally, they should be prevented from voting. P.S. If you get the idea I'm trying to stir up some discussion on this topic, you are right.
Re: BITNET mail follows
Author: John Gilmore
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1986 12:39
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1986 12:39
2 lines
683 bytes
683 bytes
What is this bull with "Bitnet mail follows"? Don't these people know how to create subject lines?
Re: killing all the lawyers
Author: John Gilmore
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1986 13:07
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1986 13:07
81 lines
5362 bytes
5362 bytes
In article <8607171214.ae23797@SEM.BRL.ARPA>, ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET writes:
> It is roughly equivalent to blaming the
> undertaker because your loved one has died...
> I also object to the feeling that lawyers are responsible
> for the laws they work with. It would be just as sensible
> to blame doctors treating cancer patients for having created
> cancer. Lawyers work with law as it is, not as they wish it
> were. It is the duty of the citizenry to abolish those laws
> they find repugnant and enforce those they find agreeable.
> It is the job of the legal system to discern the intent of
> statutes and practice accordingly. If you want to reform
> the legal system, start with the law, not the legal
> profession.
I find this to be very self-serving. There seems to be a strong
correlation between lawyers and lawmakers. How many members of
Congress have practiced law? How many judges have practiced law?
Now don't tell me lawyers are not responsible. I *know* it's not
English majors drafting those laws!
It would be great if I could "start by reforming the law" but since
I have you here reading my words, let's start with you. "The law"
doesn't seem to listen to me very well.
My view of the main problem is that people wrote the law as a way to
control other people. I don't want to be controlled. It seems that
the inevitable trend (in a society that values precedents) is for more
laws, more attempts at control, and less freedom. The only widely
acknowledged way to repudiate the precedents seems to be revolution.
[E.g. the world thinks it's OK for a new government to not honor the
old one's ideas, but if there is continuity in the government, it
it held to the precedents, treaties, procedures, etc. that it made before.]
Another problem is that recently the law has been trying to fix blame
for things to specific individuals, and provide specific redress to
people who claim to be injured. In many cases, the process of providing
redress is vastly more expensive to society and the individuals than
the original problem. Insurance is a great example here; in California
many public events have had to be canceled because the city could not
afford to insure itself against suits. This is because laws and courts
(run by lawyers) have set up precedents where if a firecracker falls on
your toe during Chinese New Year you can sue the city for $500,000 and win.
Laura Creighton has a friend who had a large hole dug (for a future
swimming pool) in their backyard. It was surrounded by a chain link fence.
One winter a snowmobilist came by, CUT THE FENCE and entered,
fell into the hole, and was critically injured. The friend ran out,
called an ambulance and because of this the guy survived. When the
cops arrived on the scene, they said "You should have just let him die
in that hole" and they thought wow, what callous cops we have. Well,
the guy sued them for having a dangerous location lying around and WON
and they get to support him for the rest of his life. I don't understand
how that can be called just, but lawyers argued the case and lawyers
judged the case and wrote the laws that set the stage and look what happened.
Another recent bad trend (still reading?) is the idea that you should be
arrested and jailed for "looking like you are about to commit a crime".
E.g. if you drive down the road drunk, you are jailed. You haven't
killed any kids, you haven't sideswiped any trees, you were just driving
down the road and it's time to go to jail. Bullshit it is. How about
"possession with intent to XXX"? It's not legal to blow up other
peoples' buildings, so let's make it illegal to have dynamite. The point
is that no harm has been caused ("YET" say the lawyers) so why are you
bothering these people? Catch the driver who kills a kid and put him
away for 30 years, or execute him for all I care -- but don't do it
because he was drunk. Do it because he hurt somebody.
> ...there
> are people whose knowledge of the workings of their
> government, including the law, is so dismal that, literally,
> they should be prevented from voting.
Gee, I think it's the people who *know* how the law works who should
be prevented from voting. What they have created is not working very
well, let's let some fresh minds give it a try.
PS: The idea that you, the citizen, are responsible for knowing
the text and meaning and current interpretation of every law on the
books is another great fuckup in the current law. Not even the
judges and lawyers and congresspeople know this stuff, how is the
average citizen expected to?
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads