posted
Promised of old, much anticipated and highly dreaded, here are some of my ideas for fixing our legal system.
**Repeal old laws**
When a law is out of date or just plain stupid, it isn't enforced. But it is still the law. And every law that is on the books that is not enforced hurts the credibility of all laws. Do we need a law that forbids women from wearing patent leather shoes in public? I hear that the laws against fellatio are still used by police when they can not use anti-prostitution laws because of lack of evidence. Either enforce them uniformly, or repeal them.
**Change the way laws are written**
I have a friend who is in school to be a legal aid, and he tells me that laws are so steeped in archaic language and lawyerese double talk that an average citizen could never understand them. If we can't understand them, how could we ever follow them?
We need to change the structure of laws so that an average citizen can read, understand and follow all laws.
Here is an off the top of my head example.
Law: Jaywalking is prohibited. Definition: Jaywalking is when pedestrians cross a road or street without using a designated crosswalk. Punishment: Fine not to exceed $100 for first offense, $200 for a second offense, etc. Purpose: To ensure public safety by making pedestrian crossings of vehicle roads more predictable and to prevent vehicle/pedestrian collisions. Exemptions: Law is only to be enforced when a suitable cross walk is available or when crossing a road is not considered to be an emergency situation or other attempt to avoid bodily harm.
**Do away with the adversarial lawyer system**
It used to be illegal for lawyers (and doctors) to advertise their services. Lawyers after all are officers of the court. They have integrity and would never use underhanded tactics and questionable legal maneuvering to achieve the result they wish without any concern for justice and fairness. Right? Why are all the lawyers so rich?
Anytime you have a system set up with competition, with sides, you will have someone willing to go too far to win. I say, instead of jury, instead of two opposing lawyers, instead of one judge in charge of procedures you have a panel of three judges with the power to question witnesses, task investigators, ask for expert testimony, etc.
These three judges would vote as to guilt/innocence, assign punishment and would have to be voted into office for a multiple year term (ten?). The public would retain the ability to impeach any judge it saw fit at any time it saw fit. No more judges appointed for life.
The three judge's job would be to seek the truth, to truly unearth justice and would have wide discretionary powers when it came to the spirit of the law.
Just a side note, I am expecting to be crucified for venturing this idea. Please be as kind as you can...fire away.
**Change the way bills are written**
Instead of pages and pages and pages of one bill chocked full of this and that and pork barrel this and political deal making that, bills should be introduced to our lawmakers one law at a time. Also, it should not just be a matter of voting yay or nay. Yay, nay and needs to be revised. A bill which receives votes for revision would be opened to the floor for changes, and then revoted on.
**Make campaign promises legally binding**
If a politician promises to do something to get into office, I see it as a contract. They promise to represent us the people in a certain way, and if they fail to do so, there should be strict punishments ranging from fines to impeachment to death for treason.
I see no reason in the whole God's green earth not to hold our leaders to a higher standard. Running for political office is completely voluntary and a huge responsibility. Also no longer should representatives miss any votes at all, barring personal emergency.
**Clear division between federal and state issues**
There are some things that should be left in the hands of the states to handle, and some which should be universal in the entire country. These areas should not overlap, at all. Part of the beauty of living in this country is you can find a state which matches your political ideals and live there.
I will get into which laws I feel should be federal and which by the state at a later date, as it is getting late and I can no longer wait or procrastinate my fate which my mate reiterates at a constant rate which is to abdicate my current state and activate a more sedate rate.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
If a politician promises to do something to get into office, I see it as a contract. They promise to represent us the people in a certain way, and if they fail to do so, there should be strict punishments ranging from fines to impeachment to death for treason.
We all hate campaign promise season, but this is particularly infeasible. Let's say a politician promises no new taxes but after being elected is suddenly faced with a new socioeconomic situation that is best dealt with by raising taxes, otherwise they can only assume an economic crash. Or, imagine any one of a thousand scenarios where a campaign promise has to no longer be pursued due to changing circumstances or new information they receive once they get security clearance related to their position. Death for treason? Really?
Unless you make this law inflexible to this sort of thing (creating untenable scenarios) there's practically no way to make this law make sense or be applied in a worthwhile fashion.
The replacement of trial by jury of peers with three elected judges on a ten-year term is horrific for many reasons, but I won't go into those. Others will.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If held to their promises, I'll bet they will start making better promises almost instantly.
Instead of "no new taxes" it will be "I will fight new taxes" or "no new income taxes for the middles class", and instead of sweeping and ultimately untrue generalities, we get actually useful and truthful campaign planks and the idea serves its purposes.
As for the death for treason...it would be at the extreme range of political misconduct, thus the suggestion of a range of penalties.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a judge has to keep campaigning for his job, he is beholden to special interests. She needs money to run her campaign (or needs to keep whoever is appointing happy). Since her career is now based on other people, he cannot be a non-biased judge.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh- why you don't get rid of stupid old laws- very costly. Some high schools do that as a project (find a stupid law and get it changed) as an example of how the system works and it also serves to illustrate just why those laws remain on the books.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
**Repeal old laws** Who says when a law is old? It seems in your definition the anti-fellatio laws are being used by the police for a socially responsible purpose. Do we make a court to decide or do we enact a law that says every law-making body must review all its laws on an annual basis to weed out the old.
This is an solution that really doesn't have a problem.
**Change the way laws are written** Yes--legalese is a difficult and silly language. But there is a reason for much of its usage. Laws are words with severe consequences, so the language that those words are created from must be as exact as possible.
Your suggestion itself is stilted already, because you were trying to make it exact.
"Punishment: Fine not to exceed $100 for first offense, $200 for a second offense, etc."
Why "Not to exceed"? Why not "Should be less than"?
**Do away with the adversarial lawyer system** You set up three people to be "Judge, Jury, and if not executor--police, prosecutor, and defender."
The goal is simple--to find the truth. In a perfect world we could easily find the truth. But we have three imperfect people--each with vast powers to punish those they dislike, reward those they prefer, and promote themselves over the value of justice.
Especially if you are looking at judges running for office--its too tempting for the judges to convict the unpopular, release the popular, and ignore justice.
**Change the way bills are written** Politically unworkable.
There are laws on the books that say that bills can only be about one subject. They did this in the state of MO and we are continually going to the court arguing that this is not one issue but many.
**Make campaign promises legally binding**
Again--unworkable. Do you want a President who swore to "Keep us out of the war" to be idle while the country is invaded?
I think a better version is that they must admit when they break a promise.
**Clear division between federal and state issues**
You feel its better for the state to handle this, or the feds to handle that? Who should we rely on to make those decisions.
One of the best corporate con jobs out there is state vs federal control of things.
If the Federal Government puts up to many controls, the corporate world demands that these things should be run by the states. After all State legislators are much easier to control, coerce and bribe.
On the other hand if a state starts passing laws that put to much control on the companies, those companies start complaining that they want Federal Control since that gives them one even playing field of rules, not a patchwork of different state rules.
See W.Virginia Coal mines wanting state control of mine safety versus the Auto Makers wanted federal, not state, control of emissions guidelines.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of those statements are so.... impossible and, well just generally "wishful thinkingish" that you can hardly consider them valid suggestions for how the world would work.
For instance, forbidding lawyers to advertise is just plain silly. How exactly is a person supposed to go about finding a lawyer then? All you'd create is an even bigger system for people to say, "I know somebody who knows somebody" and then you end up with a legal system that's practically set up like an organized crime ring! Of course, one can imagine how much easier that would make life for organized crime... they get their own way enough as it is.
As far as doing away with jury's and relying instead on a panel of judges - in some ways that has merit. Unfortunately, we have yet found a way of choosing judges with even limited power very well. You either must elect them, which means they have to basically take positions and please people continually, or they must be appointed which means they're already steeped deeply enough in politics to GET appointed. Plus, you then either have to leave them in for life, or else establish a system for them to be un-appointed, which means that you either run the risk of accidentally appointing a lunatic and having to deal with them for 30-50 years OR you are back to square one with them constantly having to please people in some sort of political play. It's hard to see how a panel of judges (much less such a small one) would be better than a jury.
As far as holding people to campaign promises - what exactly constitutes a promise? Is ever side comment a "promise"? What if two contradict each other? What of a politician makes an statement that he's going to "change the way Washington does business?" What does that even mean? What if he finds that issues aren't as black and white as he thinks they are when new information is brought to light. The idea of charging people with treason because they change their minds is laughable! I would like to see every official who runs for office complete a standard questionnaire to be shared with the voting public so that people can at least assess their current beliefs and hold them accountable to specific statements, but any sort of legally binding death in the offering system is ridiculous.
And this is just the start...
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If a judge has to keep campaigning for his job, he is beholden to special interests. She needs money to run her campaign (or needs to keep whoever is appointing happy). Since her career is now based on other people, he cannot be a non-biased judge.
Judges are not like senators or presidents or governors, only a very very few spots available, with heated competition for those positions. Sure, the supreme court would be more akin, but that would not be the case for most judges.
This brings me to...
**Campaign Reform**
Government provided advertising, on the "Government Channel", zero ad campaigns allowed, no commercials, no fliers, no bill boards. Lots of debates. To qualify for a candidacy you must gather a certain amount (different for different positions) of signatures. Zero beholding to anyone except the American people, as no huge amount of money must be raised.
For those of you stuck on "death by treason" that idea was not a part of "make campaign promises legally binding". I'm talking about the extreme misrepresentation of the people's interests, such as, proof of taking a bribe and falsifying the results of a fact finding inquiry which the false info leads us into a war.
As to the actual campaign promises, I would say, we are talking about a fine, and public humiliation. If a presidential candidate promised to keep the US out of a particular war, and we were invaded, would it shop him, to be fined? I would surely hope not. If he made that claim, he should be held to some responsibility, as if it turns out to be a stupid claim, then it is his stupid claim.
quote:It seems in your definition the anti-fellatio laws are being used by the police for a socially responsible purpose. Do we make a court to decide or do we enact a law that says every law-making body must review all its laws on an annual basis to weed out the old.
This is an solution that really doesn't have a problem.
In my example the police used a law that is archaic, invasive and wrong to circumvent the fact that they did not have enough proof to convict someone for a crime that is widely enforced. Oral sex should not be illegal. It is (in Los Angeles County, I think it was). And this is a not a problem? Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking laws so says law enforcement. They can come into your home and arrest your wife for giving you a birthday bj. Legally. Just the fact that they don't doesn't mean it is okay or just...they should. Should. Police swear to uphold the law. Judges swear to uphold the law. And this the law, as well as a wealth of other stupid crap that law enforcement is obligated to uphold. Our laws are the skeleton that holds this country up, our contract between the government and us, the governed.
quote:Your suggestion itself is stilted already, because you were trying to make it exact.
It was off the top of my head, but my point that legalese is unnecessary is valid. I would rather have an extra explanation in clear wording that succinct, archaic Latin.
quote:But we have three imperfect people--each with vast powers to punish those they dislike, reward those they prefer, and promote themselves over the value of justice.
All people are imperfect, but at least three judges who are legal experts who's discernment is approved by the people, and the people have the ability to remove their endorsement is better that 12 random yahoo's who are wildly inconstant in every aspect of judgment and accountability. My grandmother told me that at least three people on the last jury she served on didn't speak a word of English!
quote:**Change the way bills are written** Politically unworkable.
We are discussing a theoretical change, yes it would be hard to put in, but worthwhile.
quote:You feel its better for the state to handle this, or the feds to handle that? Who should we rely on to make those decisions.
One of the best corporate con jobs out there is state vs federal control of things.
Your story about companies using the system as they did is a strong point for my idea. As to who...no idea. I just feel that if we were able to iron out distributions of responsibility that the system would run smoother without overlapping our efforts and having an unworkable double standards.
quote:...forbidding lawyers to advertise is just plain silly.
Not a suggestion, just a discussion of history.
quote:As far as doing away with jury's and relying instead on a panel of judges - in some ways that has merit.
quote:Oh- why you don't get rid of stupid old laws- very costly...
Worthwhile endeavors usually are.
quote:Do we make a court to decide or do we enact a law that says every law-making body must review all its laws on an annual basis to weed out the old.
I would imagine (again off the top of my head) that a counsel representing local, county, state and federal as well as a legal historian and a constitutional expert would review the laws, and then bring all of the laws which they think should be repealed to a vote of the people.
Notice how I keep bringing it back to the voters?
This is our government, and as our lives and circumstances change it is upon us to update our Republic to keep it in check and lean and healthy.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
