🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7e922d36.0208100423.7a5f29e2@posting.google.com>,
 sfdavidkaye@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote:

  > jstlucasREVERSE@hotmail.com (Joe) wrote:
  > 
  > > They'll just raise the taxes to pay for it.
  > > 
  > 
  > The loser in a civil case (and believe me, nearly all the really long
  > cases are civil, not criminal cases) pays the "court costs". 
  > Certainly, they could pay the jury costs.
  > 
  > It's become nearly impossible to get business insurance these days. 
  > Doctors are closing their practices because they can't afford the
  > insurance.  I'm trying to take over a nightclub, but one of the big
  > problems is the high cost of insurance for it.  I know some well-known
  > restaurants and nightclubs that don't carry insurance at all because
  > they simply can't afford it.
  > 
  > And what drives up the cost of insurance?  Lawsuits.  Greedy people
  > see bucks to be made.  But, if they had to bear the cost of the
  > salaries of a jury -- 12 women and men plus 6 alternates, they'd think
  > twice before filing suits unless they were quite certain they could
  > win.  The cost would simply be too high.
  > 
  > Let's see, 18 jurors at $20 an hour.  Say the case goes on for 20
  > days.  That's $57,000 right there which the loser in a case would have
  > to pay.
  > 
  > *Everybody* would tread a little easier before suing, and the people
  > who do misdeeds would be less likely to do suable things once they
  > realized it would cost them.

So, IYO, only those who can afford to lose (rightly or wrongly) should 
have access to the courts? Only the monied should have the right to a 
trial by jury? You would divide the population into two classes: those 
who have a chance for justice, and those who have NO such chance. 
Tyrants have been doing exactly that for millennia.

Why not just take the loser's firstborn son?

-- 
"No Fear"? Fear is prudent. Acting in spite of it is courage. 
Without fear, there is no courage.