Thread: Why can't people just get along?

Originally Posted by Deerhunter1995

the good old days when yoou and a another guy had a problem you stepped outside and when you were done you shook hands and drank a beer together. instead of sueing or pressing chages of something stupid.

Aren't you a teenager?

Originally Posted by Wullie

I no longer have my name on the "jury wheel". I FINALLY got a medical release from ever having my name called again due to the fact that without my hearing aids, I CAN'T HEAR SHYTE! With the miracles of modern technology, I STILL CAN'T UNDERSTAND SHYTE in a room with hard walls and floors.

Letter from the VA doc and I'm off the hook.

You musta spent too much time in trucks.

With me I think it was too much time flying old private planes for business.

Originally Posted by 1OldGI

I don't think people get along any better or worse than they ever did, I think the important distinction is now-a-days instead of taking it out to the parking lot, or simply agreeing to disagree, the answer to everything seems to be sue or press charges. In days of old, people were the simple harmless kind of a**holes, these days, it seems they're the greedy, money grubbing litigenous type a**holes.

An Eagle scout AND a Lawyer!? Now there's a conflict of interest.

I think one reason there is so much fighting in court is somehow people think it is their right not "not be offended". Read the Constitution, it ain't in there. The First Amendment guarantees my right to offend you, but unfortunately it's mostly ignored unless it supports someone's political agenda.

Originally Posted by Jeltz

There has been quite a bit of talk here in the UK about having professional jurors for such things as fraud cases where complicated matters can be hard for "normal" people to understand unless they have has special training.

It the exact opposite here. The Lawyers want people to be completely ignorant of the subjects involved so they can spoon feed you an education. This helps them slant the facts to their side of the case.

If you profess a background in DNA for example the lawyers will get you thrown off the case where DNA evidence is going to be used.

I have a different view of the proceedings. Atleast in the USA where judges are elected or appointed based on political party. Justice is tempered by money. If your legal firm has contributed enough to the judges election or enough to his party, your chance at justice is better that the next guy. It's a different world we live in and money, being a First Amendment Right speaks the loudest!

Originally Posted by Jeltz

There has been quite a bit of talk here in the UK about having professional jurors for such things as fraud cases where complicated matters can be hard for "normal" people to understand unless they have has special training.

Personally I think it would be better if being a juror was a job in its own right and that there was a core of working jurors with part time juror jobs being available to make up numbers.

All too often we read of people who don't understand the importance and who end up being charged with contempt because they did something stupid while on jury duty examples in the last couple of years IIRC were listening to an MP3 player or pulling a sicky to go to a West End show or contacting the defendant on facebook. While it wouldn't guarantee a better quality of juror at least they would know what they should and shouldn't do a bit better and it would still be one's peers just peers that are used to sitting in on trials.

Then just do away with the Jury system all together, and simply have the judge be the finder of fact. Personally i like our system, despite its occasional inconvenience. I want people with a diverse background on my jury, if I am ever subjected to the rigors of a trial.

Originally Posted by Johnus

I have a different view of the proceedings. Atleast in the USA where judges are elected or appointed based on political party. Justice is tempered by money. If your legal firm has contributed enough to the judges election or enough to his party, your chance at justice is better that the next guy. It's a different world we live in and money, being a First Amendment Right speaks the loudest!

I pray to not be so cynical. The position of being a Judge is one of honor, and the Judge should be persuaded by the law, not politics.

Here in Colorado, the Judge is appointed (no election), and then subject to voter retention. The voters can vote a judge our of his/her position, but there is not election or politics involved in the appointment procedure. qualified persons will apply for the position, a judicial panel, made up of both attorneys and non-attorneys, review the applications and pick three, the Governor then reviews the three and appoints one. That judge will serve a provision two years, and then be subject to a vote of the public to be retained. if retained, then he/she serves terms of six years and is subject to retention votes every six years. I think is a very good system, largely keeping politics out of the judicial selection process.

On the whole I thing Judges are pretty fair, at least in my area.

On the left coast however, they are radical and legislate from the bench.

Originally Posted by Crotalus

You musta spent too much time in trucks.

With me I think it was too much time flying old private planes for business.

Lost the biggest part my hearing on the flight deck of the USS AMERICA. I was a "red shirt" ( ordnance type) and did CAG arming. I worked between or beside the bow cats during the launches. To say it was loud would be an understatement.

The rest of it went to trucks, old HD junk, and planes. I've got more than a few hours in old tube and rag junk.

Don't fly anything but this computer nowadays.

Sorry for the cynical position on the legal system ... But as long as judges are elected in a system where they need to take money contribution for the election campaigns they will alway be beholding to the people that have paid for them to get their jobs. You take their coin, you dance their dance.