To gain justice, we must eliminate judges!!

reply to post by Liberal1984


Judges give jurors jury instructions, which are written in terms jurors understand. There is no need to "dumb down" statutes so jurors can understand them.

Many statutes, like the Internal Revenue code, can be complex. At the same time, we need certain statutes like the Internal Revenue code to be complex for them to suit their purposes. If statutes like the Internal Revenue Code were oversimplified, many awkward results would follow.

If statutes are too simple, they may be unduly harsh or too lenient. Many statutes need complexity to create necessary exceptions to rules. For example if we had a simple rule which read "It is illegal to kill" many people who kill others in self defense or by an innocent accident will be punsihed along with people who commit homicide. Furthermore, amongst those who commit homicides, some homicidess are more deserving of harsh punishment than others. This is why most states distinguish between two or more degrees of murder and/or have manslaughter.

I agree, it should be handled not only by a jury duty of peers, but also there should be fast access to readjustments made, so that changes and rescues can happen easily as well. Justice should be replaced with reformation and healing of people, and many of the things criminialized should be de-criminalized and/or dealt with by bracelets and rehab.

One point a lot of people are missing is how clogged our court systems really are. It takes several years for cases to make it though the court system. Judges often do not have the time to "administer justice", and do everything they can to encourage out of court settlements and plea bargains. The overwhelming majority of civil and criminal cases do NOT get heard by juries, but are settled out of court.

Another point people are missing are judges' roles before trials. Trials are the culmination of months of procedural wrangling between the parties. During this time, the parties hold depositions, subpoenae documents, and serve papers on eachother. Usually, the parties play by the rules during the preliminary stages of the lawsuit, but a court sometimes needs to step in and get the parties to follow the rules.

Courts also help the parties settle disputes by managing this pre-trial process. At the firm I worked at, we were able to settle cases because the judge pushed back the trial date so the parties could have more time to reach a settlement agreement.

In the Video of Justice Kennedy, I thought he was going to burst out in tears the whole speech.

He sounded like he might be an honest judge, but in my experiences, I have had a couple cases where the judge arbitrarily came to a finding that was not only beyond interpretation, but contrary to the code of law.

In one case it was in my favor, in another, the finding was made without allowing crutial evidence to be submitted.

Even if it goes to a jury, some rules specified by the Judge for the jury to abide by can undermine the legal process by disallowing use of law itself at times.

I believe any appointment should be under higher srcutiny and removal a much more used option when corruption is rampid.

Other than that, I wouldn't judge all judges stereotypically.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by imd12c4funn]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by imd12c4funn]typos

[edit on 9-5-2009 by imd12c4funn]