Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Cool, thanks a lot for your replies I really appreciate them.
2. All jurors are trained ethically bound lawyers (for Mark)
This would at least double the number of lawyers we'd need in New Zealand.
Kyle, I am quite religious, though not in a churchy sense, and here is what I actually think this whole thing has been about. 12 disciples=12 jurors.
But Giovanni and latterly Logan clear that up with
'don't use juries at all'
and
'no need for juries'.
Sounds good to me.
I rolled a dice to decide whether to respond to this Mark;p
Besides, a jury is supposed to be of your peers.
Not inherently in any dictionary website I subscribe to. It's just a group of people.
Thank you for your longer reply Scotty, if I may adress it point by point;
0. An oath should be taken requiring a higher standard of ethics.
Higher than what? Whose standard? Who decides who's fit to practise?
I levied this in anticipation of how to deal with the corruption that would surely result in total deprivatization (not sure if this is the right word) of the system. As Logan pointed out;
lawyers are one of the most heavily governed professions
And I don't dispute that, I'm merely angling towards stricter requirements were the entire legal system put on the government payroll.
Which is my main point. Paid for in large by big business.
1. Private legal practice is outmoded. All legal representation is provided by the state. (a significant pay cut for some)
This is how the system works in places like North Korea.
For obvious reasons I felt a little short changed by this answer. While not wanting to trouble you too much ScottY I hope you can give me a better one. I am all too well aware that the prospect would seem nightmarish to one already established within the current system, however I am still curious to understand the pitfalls in a democratic society.
Regarding 3 and 4, I agree, I regret including them. But my main reasoning was in anticipation of something like the DPRK being mentioned, and the need for transparency. In order for transparency to work though there would need to be a conscientious time consuming reeducation campaign to destigmatize the court system to reach a point where Gareth's
"innocent before proven otherwise"
stands the test of the staffroom gossip.
"it's still being tried Reggie, doesn't mean jack till the fat lady pops."
ie. idealist waffling. Name suppression should have been left off my list. as you say and further reiterate with the Rickard's case ScottY;
I'll agree name suppression isn't consistently applied
I'll leave that one there.
However back to my main point, possibly the least attractive for lawyers to deal with but still I'm hoping for an answer1. Private legal practice is outmoded. All legal representation is provided by the state. (a significant pay cut for some)
I am aware that in court work represents a tiny part of the system. But I am curious as to the numbers and the hours.
Off on a tangent now. In consideration of a female student who was recently released from prison after about a month none the worse for wear for assault. The Vietch case has seemed to transpire in a remarkably similar vein to how things work in Beijing, with compensation as a primary object. The only singular difference being that the initial negotiations between Vietch and Dunne-Powell would have been carried out with police mediation and the whole thing would have been cleared up years ago without the cover stories, tell all exposés, private investigations, medical prescriptions, extensive waste police man power transport, lies rumours, skullduggery and GPS. At least not until after the fact. Which still would have been years ago. Does $10,000 cover all that?
-
5. Lawyers are more or less randomly allocated case by case.
Would have to be Lawyers of chosen field to defend/prosecute cases of said field surely Mark
Yes. Definitely.
-
2. All jurors are trained ethically bound lawyers (for Mark)
Not a good idea. They'd spend their time arguing legal interpretations, rather than the facts presented. That's why lawyers aren't allowed to sit on juries now.
They're not being paid any extra to sit on juries. I think quite the opposite. They'd be less bamboozled that the ordinary citizen and want to get off unpaid work as soon as possible.
-
Please indulge my curiosity and explain how that would work.
Shit. put my foot in it this time. Fresh off watching 'Zeitgeist Addendum'. I'll have a go nevertheless ScottY as I imagine my ramblings might inspire someone with a clue to make some realistic provisions. I'd envisage something not indifferent to those other pillars of civilization; Education, Health, etc
0. An oath should be taken requiring a higher standard of ethics.
1. Private legal practice is outmoded. All legal representation is provided by the state. (a significant pay cut for some)
2. All jurors are trained ethically bound lawyers (for Mark)
3.Name suppression is done away with, the notion of innocence until proven guilty is reemphasized.
4. Defendant's jobs are protected by law until proven guilty.
5. Lawyers are more or less randomly allocated case by case.
Obviously you'll find some glaring holes in that ScottY, but I'd be interested to see what kind of thoughts and ideas other people have.
-
Bashing the legal system and its inequities is like blaming Corrections every time someone on parole kills or hurts someone. The system's an easy target, but nobody can actually think of a better way to do things. But we'll just blame the entire system anyway.
a moneyless system would be better.
-
Guess P.Holmes was listening to a little eminem when he wrote that one; "It'd be so empty without me", textbook rarking up the masses technique. His editor must be chuffed.
-
Thanks for saying that George.
-
I'm enjoying Russell as Che, "Get off the grid!"
-
yeah, agree Sacha.
-
you rant Danielle? no surely not.