Just wondering what some weak points are in our legal system, I can think of 4 or 5 of the top of my head without searching.

1 Jurors who are expected to do the work of professionals

2 Around 60 to 70 percent of people who go into state and federal parliaments do not have any legal background, yet they expected to be good lawmakers.

3 Religious interference by religious politicians state and federal.

4 People are expected to know the law, Yet they are not told about it. Hypocritical

5 No transparency, No trust

Tau.Neutrino said:

1 Jurors who are expected to do the work of professionals

2 Around 60 to 70 percent of people who go into state and federal parliaments do not have any legal background, yet they expected to be good lawmakers.

3 Religious interference by religious politicians state and federal.

4 People are expected to know the law, Yet they are not told about it. Hypocritical

5 No transparency, No trust

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

Arts said:

can you elaborate on some of your points?

Are you insane?

sibeen said:

Arts said:

can you elaborate on some of your points?

Are you insane?

I’d like to see a stronger legal system.

We make it stronger by criticism, opinions and discussion.

Tau.Neutrino said:

sibeen said:

Arts said:

can you elaborate on some of your points?

Are you insane?

I’d like to see a stronger legal system.

We make it stronger by criticism, opinions and discussion.

you don’t even know how the one we have at the moment works. maybe learn that before wanting to fix it.

Bogsnorkler said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

sibeen said:

Are you insane?

I’d like to see a stronger legal system.

We make it stronger by criticism, opinions and discussion.

you don’t even know how the one we have at the moment works. maybe learn that before wanting to fix it.

Thank you fruitcake.

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

1 Jurors who are expected to do the work of professionals

2 Around 60 to 70 percent of people who go into state and federal parliaments do not have any legal background, yet they expected to be good lawmakers.

3 Religious interference by religious politicians state and federal.

4 People are expected to know the law, Yet they are not told about it. Hypocritical

5 No transparency, No trust

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

1 Jurors who are expected to do the work of professionals

2 Around 60 to 70 percent of people who go into state and federal parliaments do not have any legal background, yet they expected to be good lawmakers.

3 Religious interference by religious politicians state and federal.

4 People are expected to know the law, Yet they are not told about it. Hypocritical

5 No transparency, No trust

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

You want everyone in parliament to have a legal background?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

1 Jurors who are expected to do the work of professionals

2 Around 60 to 70 percent of people who go into state and federal parliaments do not have any legal background, yet they expected to be good lawmakers.

3 Religious interference by religious politicians state and federal.

4 People are expected to know the law, Yet they are not told about it. Hypocritical

5 No transparency, No trust

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

How can people pulled off the street make informed legal decisions when they don’t have that knowledge

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

I’d like to see trial jurors by legal professionals not by peers without legal background.

Tau.Neutrino said:

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

You want everyone in parliament to have a legal background?

I don’t think it is necessary. There are usually enough civil servants they can call upon to advise on the proper wording of laws.

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

You want everyone in parliament to have a legal background?

Yes, they go in there to make law, so should have some training first.

I dont trust the system when only a handful of law experts are running the show, with dumbed down backbenches forced to go with the party line.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

How can people pulled off the street make informed legal decisions when they don’t have that knowledge

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

I’d like to see trial jurors by legal professionals not by peers without legal background.

The role of the judge is to explain the law to the jury applicable to the case they are dealing with.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

You want everyone in parliament to have a legal background?

I don’t think it is necessary. There are usually enough civil servants they can call upon to advise on the proper wording of laws.

They go in there to make LAW then they should know something about it.

Tau.Neutrino said:

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

You want everyone in parliament to have a legal background?

Yes, they go in there to make law, so should have some training first.

I dont trust the system when only a handful of law experts are running the show, with dumbed down backbenches forced to go with the party line.

So someone with a legal background can make intelligent decisions about engineering issues, environmental issues, health issues, education issues, defense issues……all because they have a legal background?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

1 Jurors who are expected to do the work of professionals

2 Around 60 to 70 percent of people who go into state and federal parliaments do not have any legal background, yet they expected to be good lawmakers.

3 Religious interference by religious politicians state and federal.

4 People are expected to know the law, Yet they are not told about it. Hypocritical

5 No transparency, No trust

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

I see. A parliament should hold a conglomerate representing the interests of the greatest number of citizens. hat means we need more from a wider set of experiences than just lawyers

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

You want everyone in parliament to have a legal background?

I don’t think it is necessary. There are usually enough civil servants they can call upon to advise on the proper wording of laws.

They go in there to make LAW then they should know something about it.

They should be well rounded polymaths who know a lot about a lot different things. Economics,Science, Engineering, Psychology, Law, Health, Education, Test Cricket etc… as well as law. But such people are rare.

shakes fist

Bugger, polymath was the word at the end of my tongue, just couldn’t get it out.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

How can people pulled off the street make informed legal decisions when they don’t have that knowledge

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

I’d like to see trial jurors by legal professionals not by peers without legal background.

Jurors are given all the information they need for the case. In many ways it is the better system, because they come with no preconceived ideas of how things should be.. they make decisions based on their evidence given to them. A jury has no say in sentencing at all – that is what the judge does at a separate hearing.

Expert witnesses are required to make a jury undrstand what they are saying, procedures and outcomes. It is their job as the expert witness to make what they are saying jargon free.

party_pants said:

shakes fist

To be fair I had forgotten about Test Cricket :)

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL

So the standard of sentencing is up to scratch is it?

There is a difference between legal processionals who know law and people off the street who don’t.

I would like to see some experimental trials involving a jury of professionals and then do it again with people off the street.

That would be interesting.

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

2. I don’t understand what you mean by point two

3. many of our laws have religious basis.. thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal etc

4. the laws of any country are there in full for those who would like to read them… all of them. You can even phone people up and ask them to explain stuff if you get stuck. Ignorance of laws is not hypocrisy.

5. transparency for what? knowledge of the laws? see point 4.

can you elaborate on some of your points?

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

I see. A parliament should hold a conglomerate representing the interests of the greatest number of citizens. hat means we need more from a wider set of experiences than just lawyers

They go in there to make Law, they should know something about it regardless where they come from

that is there primary role, to make law.

Time to raise the standard all around it seems.

Tau.Neutrino said:

So the standard of sentencing is up to scratch is it?

I’d let a judge be the judge of that.

Obviously not judge mental, that would be silly.

Tau.Neutrino said:

sibeen said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL

So the standard of sentencing is up to scratch is it?

There is a difference between legal processionals who know law and people off the street who don’t.

I would like to see some experimental trials involving a jury of professionals and then do it again with people off the street.

That would be interesting.

sentencing laws are a completely different ball park to the work a jury does. A judge is bound by max and min sentences within a given crime.

You are talking about three different systems – parliamentarians, jury trials and sentencing they are separate circles that slightly overlap but have whole ranges of different public outcomes.

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

How can people pulled off the street make informed legal decisions when they don’t have that knowledge

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

I’d like to see trial jurors by legal professionals not by peers without legal background.

Jurors are given all the information they need for the case. In many ways it is the better system, because they come with no preconceived ideas of how things should be.. they make decisions based on their evidence given to them. A jury has no say in sentencing at all – that is what the judge does at a separate hearing.

Expert witnesses are required to make a jury undrstand what they are saying, procedures and outcomes. It is their job as the expert witness to make what they are saying jargon free.

I would like to see how outcomes are effected by replacing jurors with legal professionals.

I think it would be interesting to see.

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

sibeen said:

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL
ROFL

ROFL

So the standard of sentencing is up to scratch is it?

There is a difference between legal processionals who know law and people off the street who don’t.

I would like to see some experimental trials involving a jury of professionals and then do it again with people off the street.

That would be interesting.

sentencing laws are a completely different ball park to the work a jury does. A judge is bound by max and min sentences within a given crime.

You are talking about three different systems – parliamentarians, jury trials and sentencing they are separate circles that slightly overlap but have whole ranges of different public outcomes.

Yes I am aware of different levels in the system.

Three levels and more that all need improvement.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

From this document scroll down to Figure 5. Fields of qualification (percentage)

The 43rd Parliament: traits and trends

I see. A parliament should hold a conglomerate representing the interests of the greatest number of citizens. hat means we need more from a wider set of experiences than just lawyers

They go in there to make Law, they should know something about it regardless where they come from

that is there primary role, to make law.

Time to raise the standard all around it seems.

ok here’s a link for you

“Parliament has four main functions: legislation (making laws), representation (acting on behalf of voters and citizens), scrutiny (examining the government), and formation of government”

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Work_of_the_Parliament

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

How can people pulled off the street make informed legal decisions when they don’t have that knowledge

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

I’d like to see trial jurors by legal professionals not by peers without legal background.

Jurors are given all the information they need for the case. In many ways it is the better system, because they come with no preconceived ideas of how things should be.. they make decisions based on their evidence given to them. A jury has no say in sentencing at all – that is what the judge does at a separate hearing.

Expert witnesses are required to make a jury undrstand what they are saying, procedures and outcomes. It is their job as the expert witness to make what they are saying jargon free.

I would like to see how outcomes are effected by replacing jurors with legal professionals.

I think it would be interesting to see.

They would turn corrupt, or moribund and out of touch in their thinking.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

1. Jurors are expected to do the work of peers. That’s what a jury is trial by peers..

How can people pulled off the street make informed legal decisions when they don’t have that knowledge

A jury consisting of legal professionals would make a more logical and ethical choice, and it would raise the standard of sentencing in the process.

I’d like to see trial jurors by legal professionals not by peers without legal background.

Jurors are given all the information they need for the case. In many ways it is the better system, because they come with no preconceived ideas of how things should be.. they make decisions based on their evidence given to them. A jury has no say in sentencing at all – that is what the judge does at a separate hearing.

Expert witnesses are required to make a jury undrstand what they are saying, procedures and outcomes. It is their job as the expert witness to make what they are saying jargon free.

I would like to see how outcomes are effected by replacing jurors with legal professionals.

I think it would be interesting to see.

there wouldn’t be an outcome because they would still be arguing

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

So the standard of sentencing is up to scratch is it?

There is a difference between legal processionals who know law and people off the street who don’t.

I would like to see some experimental trials involving a jury of professionals and then do it again with people off the street.

That would be interesting.

sentencing laws are a completely different ball park to the work a jury does. A judge is bound by max and min sentences within a given crime.

You are talking about three different systems – parliamentarians, jury trials and sentencing they are separate circles that slightly overlap but have whole ranges of different public outcomes.

Yes I am aware of different levels in the system.

Three levels and more that all need improvement.

well, I agree that they need improvement. All systems do. Thankfully, our legal system isn’t stagnant, it changes and grows as society changes and grows. Sure, it takes a bit longer due to protocols of having to take into account 24 million peoples ideas and opinions, but it does change and, for the most part, sees improvement in the system. I mean, isn’t it great we don’t hang people anymore?

As for transparency, you can read all our laws, watch all our parliamentary session, read old ones, go sit and listen, make statements as a citizen at local, state and even National levels (provided you follow the correct protocols to be heard), run petitions to get changes made.. there’s a lot people, citizens, can do to be a voice…

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Jurors are given all the information they need for the case. In many ways it is the better system, because they come with no preconceived ideas of how things should be.. they make decisions based on their evidence given to them. A jury has no say in sentencing at all – that is what the judge does at a separate hearing.

Expert witnesses are required to make a jury undrstand what they are saying, procedures and outcomes. It is their job as the expert witness to make what they are saying jargon free.

I would like to see how outcomes are effected by replacing jurors with legal professionals.

I think it would be interesting to see.

there wouldn’t be an outcome because they would still be arguing

Use AI to streamline the obvious point in law, make it transparent to the public then there is pressure on them to get it right.

Are jury’s decision making make public ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are jury’s decision making make public ?

Or can the public access a jury decision making process after the court case is finished?

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

I see. A parliament should hold a conglomerate representing the interests of the greatest number of citizens. hat means we need more from a wider set of experiences than just lawyers

They go in there to make Law, they should know something about it regardless where they come from

that is there primary role, to make law.

Time to raise the standard all around it seems.

ok here’s a link for you

“Parliament has four main functions: legislation (making laws), representation (acting on behalf of voters and citizens), scrutiny (examining the government), and formation of government”

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Work_of_the_Parliament

Thanks

I’ll have a read of that.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are jury’s decision making make public ?

do you mean their actual deliberation? this is not made public to protect the jurors. the final decision, of course, is

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are jury’s decision making make public ?

Or can the public access a jury decision making process after the court case is finished?

if the juror decides to talk about it, then yes, in some cases.. in some cases they cannot talk about it to protect the members of the jury. It would depend on the case and the outcome and ongoing cases.

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are jury’s decision making make public ?

do you mean their actual deliberation? this is not made public to protect the jurors. the final decision, of course, is

Its not transparent then. I’d like to see something better.

I don’t know what could replace it.

Interesting.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are jury’s decision making make public ?

do you mean their actual deliberation? this is not made public to protect the jurors. the final decision, of course, is

Its not transparent then. I’d like to see something better.

I don’t know what could replace it.

Interesting.

It’s a shithouse system, but it beats everything else we’ve ever tried.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

do you mean their actual deliberation? this is not made public to protect the jurors. the final decision, of course, is

Its not transparent then. I’d like to see something better.

I don’t know what could replace it.

Interesting.

It’s a shithouse system, but it beats everything else we’ve ever tried.

:)

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Are jury’s decision making make public ?

do you mean their actual deliberation? this is not made public to protect the jurors. the final decision, of course, is

Its not transparent then. I’d like to see something better.

I don’t know what could replace it.

Interesting.

this process is not made public to protect the innocent people who give their time to help make a legal system work. They have a privacy right to what they say. If they didn’t an individual might not say something that helps change the perspective of the deliberations. And therefore not lead to a fair deliberation.

what you are suggesting is for jurors to give up their right to privacy and therefore, compromising the honesty of the deliberation. It’s like making everyone post their full name and address before they voice an opinion anywhere. quite unreasonable in these scenarios

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

do you mean their actual deliberation? this is not made public to protect the jurors. the final decision, of course, is

Its not transparent then. I’d like to see something better.

I don’t know what could replace it.

Interesting.

this process is not made public to protect the innocent people who give their time to help make a legal system work. They have a privacy right to what they say. If they didn’t an individual might not say something that helps change the perspective of the deliberations. And therefore not lead to a fair deliberation.

what you are suggesting is for jurors to give up their right to privacy and therefore, compromising the honesty of the deliberation. It’s like making everyone post their full name and address before they voice an opinion anywhere. quite unreasonable in these scenarios

Yes, I understand that. A better system would have to address that.

It would be interesting to see a jury modernized in some way, maybe even replaced using artificial intelligence

Say AI units programmed with every point of law, and that deliberation process made transparent.

you’re not slipping into some sort of legal determinism, or social constructionism, neutrino, like every action of a human down to the workings of individual neurons is or ought be formally directed so.

mostly the law provides an operating space, it’s not there to steer everything.

it’s more a guide, with a gist.

however, to your point, there is a phenomenon of the law, what is legal, I was contemplating recently, that you may be interested in.

the boundaries of what is lawful attract people to occupy territory very near what is unlawful

i’m not sure the effect has a name.

a good example is speed limits, they encourage people toward the limit, to ride the limit, to the extent people will set their cruise control to just over exploiting the allowance for speedometer error (law may toughened up on that, not sure).

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Its not transparent then. I’d like to see something better.

I don’t know what could replace it.

Interesting.

this process is not made public to protect the innocent people who give their time to help make a legal system work. They have a privacy right to what they say. If they didn’t an individual might not say something that helps change the perspective of the deliberations. And therefore not lead to a fair deliberation.

what you are suggesting is for jurors to give up their right to privacy and therefore, compromising the honesty of the deliberation. It’s like making everyone post their full name and address before they voice an opinion anywhere. quite unreasonable in these scenarios

Yes, I understand that. A better system would have to address that.

It would be interesting to see a jury modernized in some way, maybe even replaced using artificial intelligence

Say AI units programmed with every point of law, and that deliberation process made transparent.

No. Just no.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

this process is not made public to protect the innocent people who give their time to help make a legal system work. They have a privacy right to what they say. If they didn’t an individual might not say something that helps change the perspective of the deliberations. And therefore not lead to a fair deliberation.

what you are suggesting is for jurors to give up their right to privacy and therefore, compromising the honesty of the deliberation. It’s like making everyone post their full name and address before they voice an opinion anywhere. quite unreasonable in these scenarios

Yes, I understand that. A better system would have to address that.

It would be interesting to see a jury modernized in some way, maybe even replaced using artificial intelligence

Say AI units programmed with every point of law, and that deliberation process made transparent.

No. Just no.

What if they actually did a better job ?

Give the AI units a trial run.

deliberate pun

transition said:

you’re not slipping into some sort of legal determinism, or social constructionism, neutrino, like every action of a human down to the workings of individual neurons is or ought be formally directed so.

mostly the law provides an operating space, it’s not there to steer everything.

it’s more a guide, with a gist.

however, to your point, there is a phenomenon of the law, what is legal, I was contemplating recently, that you may be interested in.

the boundaries of what is lawful attract people to occupy territory very near what is unlawful

i’m not sure the effect has a name.

a good example is speed limits, they encourage people toward the limit, to ride the limit, to the extent people will set their cruise control to just over exploiting the allowance for speedometer error (law may toughened up on that, not sure).

I want to see a stronger legal system.

That is all.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Yes, I understand that. A better system would have to address that.

It would be interesting to see a jury modernized in some way, maybe even replaced using artificial intelligence

Say AI units programmed with every point of law, and that deliberation process made transparent.

No. Just no.

What if they actually did a better job ?

Give the AI units a trial run.

deliberate pun

AI suffers from exactly the same problem you are against. Computer programmers are not legal experts. No AI can be better than the programming.

Say if Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson and other nutters had to do some legal training to get in.

Would they bother?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Say if Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson and other nutters had to do some legal training to get in.

Would they bother?

plenty of wigs in parliament, not sure there’s a need for more of them

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

No. Just no.

What if they actually did a better job ?

Give the AI units a trial run.

deliberate pun

AI suffers from exactly the same problem you are against. Computer programmers are not legal experts. No AI can be better than the programming.

Such a system would be transparent, and if flaws are found, then fixed.

We could build such a system from what the law actually says.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Say if Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson and other nutters had to do some legal training to get in.

Would they bother?

plenty of wigs in parliament, not sure there’s a need for more of them

My point is that parliament is the place to make Law then people going there should be required to know basic law making skills.

They don’t have to be fully qualified solicitors.

mostly the law’s a contingent backdrop, applied when good sense fails, in this country there’s a reliance on education, first, more so anyway. Deterrence. It’s sort of a theme of free societies.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Say if Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson and other nutters had to do some legal training to get in.

Would they bother?

plenty of wigs in parliament, not sure there’s a need for more of them

My point is that parliament is the place to make Law then people going there should be required to know basic law making skills.

They don’t have to be fully qualified solicitors.

How many business would fail if they bough in unskilled workers ?

They would have to train them to do the work properly.

I know there is some process newbies go through, but its nothing like what I’m suggesting.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Say if Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson and other nutters had to do some legal training to get in.

Would they bother?

plenty of wigs in parliament, not sure there’s a need for more of them

My point is that parliament is the place to make Law then people going there should be required to know basic law making skills.

They don’t have to be fully qualified solicitors.

you have sort of a view of human behavior and social organization that’s more like social constructionism. I reckon you do.

policy is more important than law when it comes to Parliament.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

plenty of wigs in parliament, not sure there’s a need for more of them

My point is that parliament is the place to make Law then people going there should be required to know basic law making skills.

They don’t have to be fully qualified solicitors.

you have sort of a view of human behavior and social organization that’s more like social constructionism. I reckon you do.

Social constructionism – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality.

party_pants said:

policy is more important than law when it comes to Parliament.

Why is that, dont polices become law ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

My point is that parliament is the place to make Law then people going there should be required to know basic law making skills.

They don’t have to be fully qualified solicitors.

you have sort of a view of human behavior and social organization that’s more like social constructionism. I reckon you do.

Social constructionism – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

Social constructionism or the social construction of reality (also social concept) is a theory of knowledge in sociology and communication theory that examines the development of jointly constructed understandings of the world that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality.

That’s it. There’s variations of it, not that it’s not true to some extent, of all, but asserted as model of how minds work, or ought work, that’s a type of politics, and finds its way into politics more broadly, and systems theory, or if you like ideas about social organization, and more importantly the forces that influence and shape that organization.

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

policy is more important than law when it comes to Parliament.

Why is that, dont polices become law ?

Policy is choosing what laws to make in the first place. Having a parliament full of lawyers only means the law will be well written, it does not mean they will be good laws based upon sound ideas. Things are not fucked if laws are badly written, they fucked if bad ideas become law.

You could write a law that any priest is exempt from prosecution for child molestation. It could be well written with perfectly clear and understandable definitions. But it is still a stupid law.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

party_pants said:

policy is more important than law when it comes to Parliament.

Why is that, dont polices become law ?

Policy is choosing what laws to make in the first place. Having a parliament full of lawyers only means the law will be well written, it does not mean they will be good laws based upon sound ideas. Things are not fucked if laws are badly written, they fucked if bad ideas become law.

You could write a law that any priest is exempt from prosecution for child molestation. It could be well written with perfectly clear and understandable definitions. But it is still a stupid law.

Ok, I get that.

It would be interesting to see how many stupid laws we have.

And outdated ones, must be lots over the years.

Does both the House of reps and the Senate have the same coat of arms ?

Here it is, with description underneath

Quarterly of six, the first quarter Argent a Cross Gules charged with a Lion passant guardant between on each limb a Mullet of eight points Or; the second Azure five Mullets, one of eight, two of seven, one of six and one of five points of the first (representing the Constellation of the Southern Cross) ensigned with an Imperial Crown proper; the third of the first a Maltese Cross of the fourth, surmounted by a like Imperial Crown; the fourth of the third, on a Perch wreathed Vert and Gules an Australian Piping Shrike displayed also proper; the fifth also Or a Swan naiant to the sinister Sable; the last of the first, a Lion passant of the second, the whole within a Bordure Ermine; for the Crest on a Wreath Or and Azure A Seven-pointed Star Or, and for Supporters dexter a Kangaroo, sinister an Emu, both proper.

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Arts said:

do you mean their actual deliberation? this is not made public to protect the jurors. the final decision, of course, is

Its not transparent then. I’d like to see something better.

I don’t know what could replace it.

Interesting.

It’s a shithouse system, but it beats everything else we’ve ever tried.

The Spanish Inquisition got results.

Politicians do not draft the laws, which would be done by the parliaments legal department. Politicians debate a problem area where the current laws are insufficient and define the perimeters for a new law, therefore do not require legal training to do that. Jurors need to decide what is right or wrong, again a knowledge of the law is of less significance, but should there be a legal problem then the judge will direct them.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Just wondering what some weak points are in our legal system, I can think of 4 or 5 of the top of my head without searching.

1 Jurors who are expected to do the work of professionals

2 Around 60 to 70 percent of people who go into state and federal parliaments do not have any legal background, yet they expected to be good lawmakers.

3 Religious interference by religious politicians state and federal.

4 People are expected to know the law, Yet they are not told about it. Hypocritical

5 No transparency, No trust

Hmm, I’m not familiar with our current legal system.

Are you familiar with Gilbert and Sullivan’s one act “Trial by Jury”, which lampoons the British legal system?

I personally think that the only purpose of a jury is to spread the risk of criminal vengeance. It needs to be dispensed with where criminal vengeance is not an issue.

There are now people in the USA, and perhaps elsewhere, who specialise in jury tampering.

I once proposed that for every new law, an old one must be repealed. That’s in order to keep the total number of laws limited, and to avoid ridiculous new laws.

A lot of British Law that we’ve inherited was originally based on the work of the utilitarians, particularly John Stuart Mill, of whom I thoroughly approve. But since then a lot of rubbish has been added ad hoc.

I’m starting to come up against instances of “aboriginal law”. The most recent I’ve come across is: “Any male warrior may be absent from the tribe for three days and nights without being asked to explain his absence. Any longer than that and a friend at camp has to be available to explain that absence.” Has anyone ever written, or attempted to write, a corpus of aboriginal law? An unjust new law of that tribe was that the tribal elders had the right to sell all unmarried women to whomever they chose, generally the richest and oldest men; sometimes the bride price amounted to slavery.

My most serious complaint about the law is how slowly it acts. There was a news article tonight about a person who pleaded not guilty to crimes committed in 1996-1997.

What do you think about “Judge Judy”?

A person was fined more than $10,000 by a Greens dominated council for cutting down the trees around his house. His house was the only one in the neighbourhood that survived the next bush fire.

Domestic violence has now been fast-tracked in Australian law, it takes less than a week between the complaint and the ejection of the abuser. Good.

There is no law in Victoria that prevents people from starving animals to death. The law is that you can’t violently abuse an animal or sell a starving animal. The law also permits an abused animal that has been confiscated to be immediately returned to the abuser. Anyone taking an abused animal from its abuser will be convicted of trespass.

The 1961 science fiction novel “Stranger in a Strange Land” introduced that concept of “perfect witness”. It makes sense, but hasn’t been adopted.

I’ve been wondering in the past few days what life would be like without a police force. Would society dissolve into savagery or not?

There has been a recent push to reexamine cases where people were convicted on the evidence of forensic methods that have been discredited, such as bite marks.

Is the system of council for the defence and council for the prosecution an outmoded concept? There’s no reason why courts have to be adversarial. What about just police report plus judge?

Having known some “expert witnesses” at CSIRO, I really don’t trust their impartiality.

One fiction writer who enjoys pointing out flaws in the legal system is Jeffrey Archer. For example “Expert witness” in “To cut a long story short” and several stories in “A twist in the tale”.

In Heinlein “The Moon is a harsh mistress”, there is no official legal system. Instead, disputants hire any citizen as judge and can hire a jury if desired. Legal expenses are paid up front.

Different laws in different states. A huge problem in the USA but also different road rule laws here, in particular the maximum speed for a learner differs from state to state.

mollwollfumble said:

In Heinlein “The Moon is a harsh mistress”, there is no official legal system. Instead, disputants hire any citizen as judge and can hire a jury if desired. Legal expenses are paid up front.

Different laws in different states. A huge problem in the USA but also different road rule laws here, in particular the maximum speed for a learner differs from state to state.

You asked before what would happen in a world without police. In a book about life before artifical (or efficient artifical light) British villages would have a roster system of armed villagers patrolling at night to protect them from brigands coming in from the forest.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

In Heinlein “The Moon is a harsh mistress”, there is no official legal system. Instead, disputants hire any citizen as judge and can hire a jury if desired. Legal expenses are paid up front.

Different laws in different states. A huge problem in the USA but also different road rule laws here, in particular the maximum speed for a learner differs from state to state.

You asked before what would happen in a world without police. In a book about life before artifical (or efficient artifical light) British villages would have a roster system of armed villagers patrolling at night to protect them from brigands coming in from the forest.

Pricks like Robbing Hood and his fat gay offsider friar.

AwesomeO said:

mollwollfumble said:

In Heinlein “The Moon is a harsh mistress”, there is no official legal system. Instead, disputants hire any citizen as judge and can hire a jury if desired. Legal expenses are paid up front.

Different laws in different states. A huge problem in the USA but also different road rule laws here, in particular the maximum speed for a learner differs from state to state.

You asked before what would happen in a world without police. In a book about life before artifical (or efficient artifical light) British villages would have a roster system of armed villagers patrolling at night to protect them from brigands coming in from the forest.

which is kinda funny because well lit neighbourhoods don’t always have lower crime rates.

It’s the neighbour hoods you gotta watch out for.

Checking of sentences handed down by magistrates and judges is one I can think of, on occasion we get community orders that are illegal and aren’t picked up until we get them, sometimes a year later

>I personally think that the only purpose of a jury is to spread the risk of criminal vengeance.

could see it that way I guess, even less generous would be to see it more like a firing squad (think overdetermination)

keeping with the firing squad theme for a moment, a jury is more reflective of informal behavior controls, which contribute to normal, the usual normal that mostly prevents bad things happening that then need further (formal) attention.

slowness to apply the law (or punishment) can be seen as reluctance, not an entirely unhealthy thing.

Bogsnorkler said:

which is kinda funny because well lit neighbourhoods don’t always have lower crime rates.

Do you have a reference for that?

PS, two crazed druggies tried to break into my house (the one with tenants) less than a week ago. The police were called and a neighbour confronted them while the break-in was in progress. The front door locks were broken. But even without the police, a local security company came visiting because they’d been watching the lads.

The systems are the adversary system used in common law countries, England and its former colonies, the US, India, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, and the more widespread inquisitorial (truth-seeking) system used in France and elsewhere.

William II institutionalised corruption before he was shot dead on 2 August 1100 ( Wikipedia here ); he put every public office on sale; buyers in turn extorted bribes from people who dealt with the office. That system continued for more than two centuries. Among the consequences:

• In 1166, the common law began as an extortion racket; lawyers were the natural bagmen for extorting judges.
• Richard Posner, a US economist/judge, said judges and lawyers have always been a cartel. Members of a cartel collude to increase profits.
• Common law judges have never been trained as judges separately from lawyers, as they are in France. They are lawyers trained in sophistry elevated to the bench. Sophistry is lying via false arguments, trick questions etc.

A Sydney judge, Russell Fox, researched the English and continental systems for 11 years. He concluded that justice means fairness, and fairness and morality require a search for the truth.

England and west Europe had used a truth-defeating system since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. In November 1215, Pope Innocent III persuaded a church-state conference in November 1215 that justice means truth. European courts adopted the moral system, but a few judges in London (pop. c. 25,000) rejected it in 1219. If truth does not matter, anything goes.

Libel law has protected white collar criminals since 1275. By 1350, lawyers dominated Parliament. They still do in English-speaking legislatures.

The adversary system dates from 1460, when the cartel began to redesign civil law to make more money for lawyers. (Lawyers did not then defend criminals; petty criminals had no money, and white collar criminals were protected.)

Judges gradually transferred control of the process to lawyers, including the power to question witnesses. Some opinions of the adversary system:

• Dickens: “The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself.”
• Yale law professor Fred Rodell: “The legal trade is nothing but a high class racket.” A racket is a criminal enterprise.
• Judge Posner: “ … a contest of liars.”
• US Judge Harold Rothwax: “ … we have a system that is run entirely by lawyers for their own interests and for their own benefit.”

A serial liar …

A serial liar, William Blackstone, opened the first law school at Oxford in 1758. Judge Posner said academics are part of the cartel. Brain-washing/self-deception enable lawyers and judges to believe theirs is the Rolls Royce of justice systems.

Lawyers began to appear in the criminal courts in 1695, but conviction was fairly certain: the system had only five truth-defeating mechanisms; not many criminals wasted money on lawyers. Judges began to encourage rich criminals to pay lawyers about 1800.

Since then, they have increased the truth-defeating mechanisms to 24, including five new rules which omit significant criminal (and civil) evidence. George Orwell said: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.”

In 1800, Napoleon began work on his monument, reform of Innocent’s system. If Admiral Villeneuve had followed his instructions in 1805, England and its colonies would probably use his system.

Comparison. It should be kept in mind that taxpayers fund legal systems and pay the wages of police, prosecutors, judges, and lawyer-politicians.

In the French system, trained judges control the process and do not let lawyers pollute the truth with sophistry. On a fixed wage, they have no incentive to prolong the process; most hearings take a day or so. The innocent are rarely charged; about 95% of guilty defendants are convicted.

In the adversary system, untrained judges are passive, and lawyers paid by the hour have an incentive to spin the process out. Trials can take weeks or months, but at least 1% (5% in the US) of people in prison are innocent, and more than half guilty defendants get off.

The French system thus delivers more than twice as much justice at less than half the cost to taxpayers. It will not be difficult to change to a similar system; an inquisitorial system is already used for inquests, commissions of inquiry, and various tribunals.

Lawyers are fewer than 1% of the population, and those who are struggling should support the change; it will require six times as many judges. And so will voters, Justice Fox said the public knows that “justice marches with the truth”.

Evan Whitton’s Our Corrupt Legal System is sourced to more than 300 lawyers and judges. China Fangzheng Press has contracted to translate and publish the book in mainland China.

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

In the adversary system, untrained judges are passive, and lawyers paid by the hour have an incentive to spin the process out. Trials can take weeks or months, but at least 1% (5% in the US) of people in prison are innocent, and more than half guilty defendants get off.

Indeed, simple charges can take remand after remand to be heard with the end result being the same outcome as if they were sentenced immediately after pleading guilty, not talking trials here.

sarahs mum said:

The systems are the adversary system used in common law countries, England and its former colonies, the US, India, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, and the more widespread inquisitorial (truth-seeking) system used in France and elsewhere.

William II institutionalised corruption before he was shot dead on 2 August 1100 ( Wikipedia here ); he put every public office on sale; buyers in turn extorted bribes from people who dealt with the office. That system continued for more than two centuries. Among the consequences:

• In 1166, the common law began as an extortion racket; lawyers were the natural bagmen for extorting judges.
• Richard Posner, a US economist/judge, said judges and lawyers have always been a cartel. Members of a cartel collude to increase profits.
• Common law judges have never been trained as judges separately from lawyers, as they are in France. They are lawyers trained in sophistry elevated to the bench. Sophistry is lying via false arguments, trick questions etc.

A Sydney judge, Russell Fox, researched the English and continental systems for 11 years. He concluded that justice means fairness, and fairness and morality require a search for the truth.

England and west Europe had used a truth-defeating system since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. In November 1215, Pope Innocent III persuaded a church-state conference in November 1215 that justice means truth. European courts adopted the moral system, but a few judges in London (pop. c. 25,000) rejected it in 1219. If truth does not matter, anything goes.

Libel law has protected white collar criminals since 1275. By 1350, lawyers dominated Parliament. They still do in English-speaking legislatures.

The adversary system dates from 1460, when the cartel began to redesign civil law to make more money for lawyers. (Lawyers did not then defend criminals; petty criminals had no money, and white collar criminals were protected.)

Judges gradually transferred control of the process to lawyers, including the power to question witnesses. Some opinions of the adversary system:

• Dickens: “The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself.”
• Yale law professor Fred Rodell: “The legal trade is nothing but a high class racket.” A racket is a criminal enterprise.
• Judge Posner: “ … a contest of liars.”
• US Judge Harold Rothwax: “ … we have a system that is run entirely by lawyers for their own interests and for their own benefit.”

A serial liar …

A serial liar, William Blackstone, opened the first law school at Oxford in 1758. Judge Posner said academics are part of the cartel. Brain-washing/self-deception enable lawyers and judges to believe theirs is the Rolls Royce of justice systems.

Lawyers began to appear in the criminal courts in 1695, but conviction was fairly certain: the system had only five truth-defeating mechanisms; not many criminals wasted money on lawyers. Judges began to encourage rich criminals to pay lawyers about 1800.

Since then, they have increased the truth-defeating mechanisms to 24, including five new rules which omit significant criminal (and civil) evidence. George Orwell said: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.”

In 1800, Napoleon began work on his monument, reform of Innocent’s system. If Admiral Villeneuve had followed his instructions in 1805, England and its colonies would probably use his system.

Comparison. It should be kept in mind that taxpayers fund legal systems and pay the wages of police, prosecutors, judges, and lawyer-politicians.

In the French system, trained judges control the process and do not let lawyers pollute the truth with sophistry. On a fixed wage, they have no incentive to prolong the process; most hearings take a day or so. The innocent are rarely charged; about 95% of guilty defendants are convicted.

In the adversary system, untrained judges are passive, and lawyers paid by the hour have an incentive to spin the process out. Trials can take weeks or months, but at least 1% (5% in the US) of people in prison are innocent, and more than half guilty defendants get off.

The French system thus delivers more than twice as much justice at less than half the cost to taxpayers. It will not be difficult to change to a similar system; an inquisitorial system is already used for inquests, commissions of inquiry, and various tribunals.

Lawyers are fewer than 1% of the population, and those who are struggling should support the change; it will require six times as many judges. And so will voters, Justice Fox said the public knows that “justice marches with the truth”.

Evan Whitton’s Our Corrupt Legal System is sourced to more than 300 lawyers and judges. China Fangzheng Press has contracted to translate and publish the book in mainland China.

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

People in the Anglosphere are brainwashed into thinking that the Frenchy way is unfair.

Bubblecar said:

sarahs mum said:

The systems are the adversary system used in common law countries, England and its former colonies, the US, India, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, and the more widespread inquisitorial (truth-seeking) system used in France and elsewhere.

William II institutionalised corruption before he was shot dead on 2 August 1100 ( Wikipedia here ); he put every public office on sale; buyers in turn extorted bribes from people who dealt with the office. That system continued for more than two centuries. Among the consequences:

• In 1166, the common law began as an extortion racket; lawyers were the natural bagmen for extorting judges.
• Richard Posner, a US economist/judge, said judges and lawyers have always been a cartel. Members of a cartel collude to increase profits.
• Common law judges have never been trained as judges separately from lawyers, as they are in France. They are lawyers trained in sophistry elevated to the bench. Sophistry is lying via false arguments, trick questions etc.

A Sydney judge, Russell Fox, researched the English and continental systems for 11 years. He concluded that justice means fairness, and fairness and morality require a search for the truth.

England and west Europe had used a truth-defeating system since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. In November 1215, Pope Innocent III persuaded a church-state conference in November 1215 that justice means truth. European courts adopted the moral system, but a few judges in London (pop. c. 25,000) rejected it in 1219. If truth does not matter, anything goes.

Libel law has protected white collar criminals since 1275. By 1350, lawyers dominated Parliament. They still do in English-speaking legislatures.

The adversary system dates from 1460, when the cartel began to redesign civil law to make more money for lawyers. (Lawyers did not then defend criminals; petty criminals had no money, and white collar criminals were protected.)

Judges gradually transferred control of the process to lawyers, including the power to question witnesses. Some opinions of the adversary system:

• Dickens: “The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself.”
• Yale law professor Fred Rodell: “The legal trade is nothing but a high class racket.” A racket is a criminal enterprise.
• Judge Posner: “ … a contest of liars.”
• US Judge Harold Rothwax: “ … we have a system that is run entirely by lawyers for their own interests and for their own benefit.”

A serial liar …

A serial liar, William Blackstone, opened the first law school at Oxford in 1758. Judge Posner said academics are part of the cartel. Brain-washing/self-deception enable lawyers and judges to believe theirs is the Rolls Royce of justice systems.

Lawyers began to appear in the criminal courts in 1695, but conviction was fairly certain: the system had only five truth-defeating mechanisms; not many criminals wasted money on lawyers. Judges began to encourage rich criminals to pay lawyers about 1800.

Since then, they have increased the truth-defeating mechanisms to 24, including five new rules which omit significant criminal (and civil) evidence. George Orwell said: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.”

In 1800, Napoleon began work on his monument, reform of Innocent’s system. If Admiral Villeneuve had followed his instructions in 1805, England and its colonies would probably use his system.

Comparison. It should be kept in mind that taxpayers fund legal systems and pay the wages of police, prosecutors, judges, and lawyer-politicians.

In the French system, trained judges control the process and do not let lawyers pollute the truth with sophistry. On a fixed wage, they have no incentive to prolong the process; most hearings take a day or so. The innocent are rarely charged; about 95% of guilty defendants are convicted.

In the adversary system, untrained judges are passive, and lawyers paid by the hour have an incentive to spin the process out. Trials can take weeks or months, but at least 1% (5% in the US) of people in prison are innocent, and more than half guilty defendants get off.

The French system thus delivers more than twice as much justice at less than half the cost to taxpayers. It will not be difficult to change to a similar system; an inquisitorial system is already used for inquests, commissions of inquiry, and various tribunals.

Lawyers are fewer than 1% of the population, and those who are struggling should support the change; it will require six times as many judges. And so will voters, Justice Fox said the public knows that “justice marches with the truth”.

Evan Whitton’s Our Corrupt Legal System is sourced to more than 300 lawyers and judges. China Fangzheng Press has contracted to translate and publish the book in mainland China.

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

People in the Anglosphere are brainwashed into thinking that the Frenchy way is unfair.

Seems reasonable to me

sarahs mum said:

The systems are the adversary system used in common law countries, England and its former colonies, the US, India, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, and the more widespread inquisitorial (truth-seeking) system used in France and elsewhere.

William II institutionalised corruption before he was shot dead on 2 August 1100 ( Wikipedia here ); he put every public office on sale; buyers in turn extorted bribes from people who dealt with the office. That system continued for more than two centuries. Among the consequences:

• In 1166, the common law began as an extortion racket; lawyers were the natural bagmen for extorting judges.
• Richard Posner, a US economist/judge, said judges and lawyers have always been a cartel. Members of a cartel collude to increase profits.
• Common law judges have never been trained as judges separately from lawyers, as they are in France. They are lawyers trained in sophistry elevated to the bench. Sophistry is lying via false arguments, trick questions etc.

A Sydney judge, Russell Fox, researched the English and continental systems for 11 years. He concluded that justice means fairness, and fairness and morality require a search for the truth.

England and west Europe had used a truth-defeating system since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. In November 1215, Pope Innocent III persuaded a church-state conference in November 1215 that justice means truth. European courts adopted the moral system, but a few judges in London (pop. c. 25,000) rejected it in 1219. If truth does not matter, anything goes.

Libel law has protected white collar criminals since 1275. By 1350, lawyers dominated Parliament. They still do in English-speaking legislatures.

The adversary system dates from 1460, when the cartel began to redesign civil law to make more money for lawyers. (Lawyers did not then defend criminals; petty criminals had no money, and white collar criminals were protected.)

Judges gradually transferred control of the process to lawyers, including the power to question witnesses. Some opinions of the adversary system:

• Dickens: “The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself.”
• Yale law professor Fred Rodell: “The legal trade is nothing but a high class racket.” A racket is a criminal enterprise.
• Judge Posner: “ … a contest of liars.”
• US Judge Harold Rothwax: “ … we have a system that is run entirely by lawyers for their own interests and for their own benefit.”

A serial liar …

A serial liar, William Blackstone, opened the first law school at Oxford in 1758. Judge Posner said academics are part of the cartel. Brain-washing/self-deception enable lawyers and judges to believe theirs is the Rolls Royce of justice systems.

Lawyers began to appear in the criminal courts in 1695, but conviction was fairly certain: the system had only five truth-defeating mechanisms; not many criminals wasted money on lawyers. Judges began to encourage rich criminals to pay lawyers about 1800.

Since then, they have increased the truth-defeating mechanisms to 24, including five new rules which omit significant criminal (and civil) evidence. George Orwell said: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.”

In 1800, Napoleon began work on his monument, reform of Innocent’s system. If Admiral Villeneuve had followed his instructions in 1805, England and its colonies would probably use his system.

Comparison. It should be kept in mind that taxpayers fund legal systems and pay the wages of police, prosecutors, judges, and lawyer-politicians.

In the French system, trained judges control the process and do not let lawyers pollute the truth with sophistry. On a fixed wage, they have no incentive to prolong the process; most hearings take a day or so. The innocent are rarely charged; about 95% of guilty defendants are convicted.

In the adversary system, untrained judges are passive, and lawyers paid by the hour have an incentive to spin the process out. Trials can take weeks or months, but at least 1% (5% in the US) of people in prison are innocent, and more than half guilty defendants get off.

The French system thus delivers more than twice as much justice at less than half the cost to taxpayers. It will not be difficult to change to a similar system; an inquisitorial system is already used for inquests, commissions of inquiry, and various tribunals.

Lawyers are fewer than 1% of the population, and those who are struggling should support the change; it will require six times as many judges. And so will voters, Justice Fox said the public knows that “justice marches with the truth”.

Evan Whitton’s Our Corrupt Legal System is sourced to more than 300 lawyers and judges. China Fangzheng Press has contracted to translate and publish the book in mainland China.

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

I suppose two words sum up the difference, justice system vs legal system, the later being used for the benefit of lawyers wages.
If it was a fair system the prosecutors and defence lawyers would have equal time and resouces

sarahs mum said:

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

the series Judge John Deed deals with what you are talking abut, some.

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

the series Judge John Deed deals with what you are talking about, some.

>George Orwell said: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.”

very true, Orwell got that one right, the power to obliviate, essentially.

sarahs mum said:

The systems are the adversary system used in common law countries, England and its former colonies, the US, India, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, and the more widespread inquisitorial (truth-seeking) system used in France and elsewhere…..

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

Very pertinent post, SM.

Our political system is an adversarial one too, and that’s not really working that well for the ordinary person either.

transition said:

transition said:

sarahs mum said:

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

the series Judge John Deed deals with what you are talking about, some.

>George Orwell said: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.”

very true, Orwell got that one right, the power to obliviate, essentially.

You have the actual truth versus lawyers truth which tries to find any excuse to minimise punishment

All rise! The Judge is in de house.

JudgeMental said:

All rise! The Judge is in de house.

Here come the judge.

sarahs mum said:

JudgeMental said:

All rise! The Judge is in de house.

Here come the judge.

sings

do do, do-do

does strike me the law appeals to stereotypes, explanations so, little consciousness raising about it, if you take precedents to be maintenance of the status quo.

transition said:

does strike me the law appeals to stereotypes, explanations so, little consciousness raising about it, if you take precedents to be maintenance of the status quo.

reliance on precedents

transition said:

transition said:

does strike me the law appeals to stereotypes, explanations so, little consciousness raising about it, if you take precedents to be maintenance of the status quo.

reliance on precedents

Are precedents really only about jobs for struggling solicitors?

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

The systems are the adversary system used in common law countries, England and its former colonies, the US, India, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, and the more widespread inquisitorial (truth-seeking) system used in France and elsewhere.

William II institutionalised corruption before he was shot dead on 2 August 1100 ( Wikipedia here ); he put every public office on sale; buyers in turn extorted bribes from people who dealt with the office. That system continued for more than two centuries. Among the consequences:

• In 1166, the common law began as an extortion racket; lawyers were the natural bagmen for extorting judges.
• Richard Posner, a US economist/judge, said judges and lawyers have always been a cartel. Members of a cartel collude to increase profits.
• Common law judges have never been trained as judges separately from lawyers, as they are in France. They are lawyers trained in sophistry elevated to the bench. Sophistry is lying via false arguments, trick questions etc.

A Sydney judge, Russell Fox, researched the English and continental systems for 11 years. He concluded that justice means fairness, and fairness and morality require a search for the truth.

England and west Europe had used a truth-defeating system since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. In November 1215, Pope Innocent III persuaded a church-state conference in November 1215 that justice means truth. European courts adopted the moral system, but a few judges in London (pop. c. 25,000) rejected it in 1219. If truth does not matter, anything goes.

Libel law has protected white collar criminals since 1275. By 1350, lawyers dominated Parliament. They still do in English-speaking legislatures.

The adversary system dates from 1460, when the cartel began to redesign civil law to make more money for lawyers. (Lawyers did not then defend criminals; petty criminals had no money, and white collar criminals were protected.)

Judges gradually transferred control of the process to lawyers, including the power to question witnesses. Some opinions of the adversary system:

• Dickens: “The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself.”
• Yale law professor Fred Rodell: “The legal trade is nothing but a high class racket.” A racket is a criminal enterprise.
• Judge Posner: “ … a contest of liars.”
• US Judge Harold Rothwax: “ … we have a system that is run entirely by lawyers for their own interests and for their own benefit.”

A serial liar …

A serial liar, William Blackstone, opened the first law school at Oxford in 1758. Judge Posner said academics are part of the cartel. Brain-washing/self-deception enable lawyers and judges to believe theirs is the Rolls Royce of justice systems.

Lawyers began to appear in the criminal courts in 1695, but conviction was fairly certain: the system had only five truth-defeating mechanisms; not many criminals wasted money on lawyers. Judges began to encourage rich criminals to pay lawyers about 1800.

Since then, they have increased the truth-defeating mechanisms to 24, including five new rules which omit significant criminal (and civil) evidence. George Orwell said: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.”

In 1800, Napoleon began work on his monument, reform of Innocent’s system. If Admiral Villeneuve had followed his instructions in 1805, England and its colonies would probably use his system.

Comparison. It should be kept in mind that taxpayers fund legal systems and pay the wages of police, prosecutors, judges, and lawyer-politicians.

In the French system, trained judges control the process and do not let lawyers pollute the truth with sophistry. On a fixed wage, they have no incentive to prolong the process; most hearings take a day or so. The innocent are rarely charged; about 95% of guilty defendants are convicted.

In the adversary system, untrained judges are passive, and lawyers paid by the hour have an incentive to spin the process out. Trials can take weeks or months, but at least 1% (5% in the US) of people in prison are innocent, and more than half guilty defendants get off.

The French system thus delivers more than twice as much justice at less than half the cost to taxpayers. It will not be difficult to change to a similar system; an inquisitorial system is already used for inquests, commissions of inquiry, and various tribunals.

Lawyers are fewer than 1% of the population, and those who are struggling should support the change; it will require six times as many judges. And so will voters, Justice Fox said the public knows that “justice marches with the truth”.

Evan Whitton’s Our Corrupt Legal System is sourced to more than 300 lawyers and judges. China Fangzheng Press has contracted to translate and publish the book in mainland China.

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

I suppose two words sum up the difference, justice system vs legal system, the later being used for the benefit of lawyers wages.
If it was a fair system the prosecutors and defence lawyers would have equal time and resouces

Just because someone says something does not make it true.

A statement like “The French system thus delivers more than twice as much justice at less than half the cost to taxpayers” is so obviously non-sensical, why would anyone repeat it?

transition said:

mostly the law’s a contingent backdrop, applied when good sense fails, in this country there’s a reliance on education, first, more so anyway. Deterrence. It’s sort of a theme of free societies.

and the reason for this, is that the alternative is shades of authoritarianism.

it also conveys some positivity, faith if you like, that most people try or will learn to do the right thing, respect (to generalize). Amongst it is an egalitarian ethic, something equating with strong norms regard acceptable behavior, that ought not be imposed on any member of the moral community. It’s an old old idea that predates any written law.

transition said:

transition said:

mostly the law’s a contingent backdrop, applied when good sense fails, in this country there’s a reliance on education, first, more so anyway. Deterrence. It’s sort of a theme of free societies.

and the reason for this, is that the alternative is shades of authoritarianism.

it also conveys some positivity, faith if you like, that most people try or will learn to do the right thing, respect (to generalize). Amongst it is an egalitarian ethic, something equating with strong norms regard acceptable behavior, that ought not be imposed on any member of the moral community. It’s an old old idea that predates any written law.

The first laws were carved in stone.

>The first laws were carved in stone.

they weren’t, they were informal, unwritten, as most of behavior controls are today, informal.

what you believe and act on, mostly, are ideas and feelings in your head, which include ideas and feelings about what others do, or might think/feel.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

transition said:

mostly the law’s a contingent backdrop, applied when good sense fails, in this country there’s a reliance on education, first, more so anyway. Deterrence. It’s sort of a theme of free societies.

and the reason for this, is that the alternative is shades of authoritarianism.

it also conveys some positivity, faith if you like, that most people try or will learn to do the right thing, respect (to generalize). Amongst it is an egalitarian ethic, something equating with strong norms regard acceptable behavior, that ought not be imposed on any member of the moral community. It’s an old old idea that predates any written law.

The first laws were carved in stone.

I wonder what role early alpha males and alpha females played a part in early law forming in tribes ?

Like a top down approach .

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

and the reason for this, is that the alternative is shades of authoritarianism.

it also conveys some positivity, faith if you like, that most people try or will learn to do the right thing, respect (to generalize). Amongst it is an egalitarian ethic, something equating with strong norms regard acceptable behavior, that ought not be imposed on any member of the moral community. It’s an old old idea that predates any written law.

The first laws were carved in stone.

I wonder what role early alpha males and alpha females played a part in early law forming in tribes ?

Like a top down approach .

again, there often was often an egalitarian ethic at work, in which case those abusing privilege and power were cut down, their status diminished. Similarly there were social leveling forces to cut down braggarts.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

roughbarked said:

The first laws were carved in stone.

I wonder what role early alpha males and alpha females played a part in early law forming in tribes ?

Like a top down approach .

again, there often was often an egalitarian ethic at work, in which case those abusing privilege and power were cut down, their status diminished. Similarly there were social leveling forces to cut down braggarts.

The trouble with that idea is, these alpha males usually have a number of followers who become the enforcers. So right becomes might.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Cymek said:

sarahs mum said:

The systems are the adversary system used in common law countries, England and its former colonies, the US, India, Canada, Australia, NZ etc, and the more widespread inquisitorial (truth-seeking) system used in France and elsewhere.

William II institutionalised corruption before he was shot dead on 2 August 1100 ( Wikipedia here ); he put every public office on sale; buyers in turn extorted bribes from people who dealt with the office. That system continued for more than two centuries. Among the consequences:

• In 1166, the common law began as an extortion racket; lawyers were the natural bagmen for extorting judges.
• Richard Posner, a US economist/judge, said judges and lawyers have always been a cartel. Members of a cartel collude to increase profits.
• Common law judges have never been trained as judges separately from lawyers, as they are in France. They are lawyers trained in sophistry elevated to the bench. Sophistry is lying via false arguments, trick questions etc.

A Sydney judge, Russell Fox, researched the English and continental systems for 11 years. He concluded that justice means fairness, and fairness and morality require a search for the truth.

England and west Europe had used a truth-defeating system since the fall of the Roman Empire in 476 AD. In November 1215, Pope Innocent III persuaded a church-state conference in November 1215 that justice means truth. European courts adopted the moral system, but a few judges in London (pop. c. 25,000) rejected it in 1219. If truth does not matter, anything goes.

Libel law has protected white collar criminals since 1275. By 1350, lawyers dominated Parliament. They still do in English-speaking legislatures.

The adversary system dates from 1460, when the cartel began to redesign civil law to make more money for lawyers. (Lawyers did not then defend criminals; petty criminals had no money, and white collar criminals were protected.)

Judges gradually transferred control of the process to lawyers, including the power to question witnesses. Some opinions of the adversary system:

• Dickens: “The one great principle of the English law is to make business for itself.”
• Yale law professor Fred Rodell: “The legal trade is nothing but a high class racket.” A racket is a criminal enterprise.
• Judge Posner: “ … a contest of liars.”
• US Judge Harold Rothwax: “ … we have a system that is run entirely by lawyers for their own interests and for their own benefit.”

A serial liar …

A serial liar, William Blackstone, opened the first law school at Oxford in 1758. Judge Posner said academics are part of the cartel. Brain-washing/self-deception enable lawyers and judges to believe theirs is the Rolls Royce of justice systems.

Lawyers began to appear in the criminal courts in 1695, but conviction was fairly certain: the system had only five truth-defeating mechanisms; not many criminals wasted money on lawyers. Judges began to encourage rich criminals to pay lawyers about 1800.

Since then, they have increased the truth-defeating mechanisms to 24, including five new rules which omit significant criminal (and civil) evidence. George Orwell said: “Omission is the most powerful form of lie.”

In 1800, Napoleon began work on his monument, reform of Innocent’s system. If Admiral Villeneuve had followed his instructions in 1805, England and its colonies would probably use his system.

Comparison. It should be kept in mind that taxpayers fund legal systems and pay the wages of police, prosecutors, judges, and lawyer-politicians.

In the French system, trained judges control the process and do not let lawyers pollute the truth with sophistry. On a fixed wage, they have no incentive to prolong the process; most hearings take a day or so. The innocent are rarely charged; about 95% of guilty defendants are convicted.

In the adversary system, untrained judges are passive, and lawyers paid by the hour have an incentive to spin the process out. Trials can take weeks or months, but at least 1% (5% in the US) of people in prison are innocent, and more than half guilty defendants get off.

The French system thus delivers more than twice as much justice at less than half the cost to taxpayers. It will not be difficult to change to a similar system; an inquisitorial system is already used for inquests, commissions of inquiry, and various tribunals.

Lawyers are fewer than 1% of the population, and those who are struggling should support the change; it will require six times as many judges. And so will voters, Justice Fox said the public knows that “justice marches with the truth”.

Evan Whitton’s Our Corrupt Legal System is sourced to more than 300 lawyers and judges. China Fangzheng Press has contracted to translate and publish the book in mainland China.

http://www.tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/a-history-of-two-legal-systems-in-700-words

I suppose two words sum up the difference, justice system vs legal system, the later being used for the benefit of lawyers wages.
If it was a fair system the prosecutors and defence lawyers would have equal time and resouces

Just because someone says something does not make it true.

A statement like “The French system thus delivers more than twice as much justice at less than half the cost to taxpayers” is so obviously non-sensical, why would anyone repeat it?

I don’t find it non-sensical. The 700 words posted is fleshed out in his book ‘Our Corrupt Legal System; Why Everyone Is a Victim (Except Rich Criminals)’.

As an aside the author, Evan Whitton, died a couple of weeks ago. :(

Evan Whitton (5 March 1928 – 16 July 2018) was an Australian journalist.

Whitton was raised in Murgon in Queensland, and went away to boarding school at age eight. He worked as a reporter for the Melbourne newspaper Truth before going to work for the new Sunday Australian in 1971. Whitton was assistant editor of The National Times from 1975 to 1978 and editor from 1978 to 1981, before going to the Sydney Morning Herald as chief reporter. After a later period as Reader in Journalism at the University of Queensland, he was as of May 2018 a columnist with the online legal journal Justinian.

He won five Walkley Awards, for Best Newspaper Feature Story in 1967 and 1975, Best Piece of Newspaper Reporting in 1970, and Best Story Published in an Australian Magazine in 1973 and 1974. His 1970 award was for his coverage of Bertram Wainer’s allegations of police extortion from abortion clinics, which led to the Kaye Inquiry.

Whitton died on 16 July 2018, aged 90.
-wiki

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

I wonder what role early alpha males and alpha females played a part in early law forming in tribes ?

Like a top down approach .

again, there often was often an egalitarian ethic at work, in which case those abusing privilege and power were cut down, their status diminished. Similarly there were social leveling forces to cut down braggarts.

The trouble with that idea is, these alpha males usually have a number of followers who become the enforcers. So right becomes might.

yeah sort of works optimally with smaller groups, still the theme is there in that large entitized administrative apparatus you call Australia, or the Australian democratic government, in the democracy you enjoy, and more broadly about the culture.

australians our fairly active at cutting down big heads, and abuses of power/influence.

sometimes it’s misdirected.

more of a problem today is little people kicking little people.

transition said:

australians our fairly active at cutting down big heads, and abuses of power/influence.

sometimes it’s misdirected.

more of a problem today is little people kicking little people.

They probably deserved it.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

australians our fairly active at cutting down big heads, and abuses of power/influence.

sometimes it’s misdirected.

more of a problem today is little people kicking little people.

They probably deserved it.

thing is though where it’s misdirected, or got shades of undeserved nastiness, it serves as a model for what is normal between little people (more regular folk), and that tends to happen.

transition said:

>The first laws were carved in stone.

they weren’t, they were informal, unwritten, as most of behavior controls are today, informal.

what you believe and act on, mostly, are ideas and feelings in your head, which include ideas and feelings about what others do, or might think/feel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

http://www.civicsandcitizenship.edu.au/cce/pl_early_laws,9534.html