Think about it. Far as I can tell:
1. Lawyers are paid based on winning cases, and not punished if they exaggerate or omit parts of the truth...and the only people in the jury, often less talented at rhetoric then the lawyers (and unable to keep up with their rhetoric), can filter out the truth in final decisions. This problem often exists regardless of any judge's handling objections and moderating communication.
2. Richer people can afford more persuasive lawyers and bails, for example, can often simply be paid off (and not as a percentage of income or asset ownership). This often make the law biased heavily in favor of the rich...and it's not "just OJ Simpson".
3. Too many times a judge's slant can be based personal emotions. (If it doesn't already exist in some form) their should be a few judges that can call the judge on bias, just as the congress can limit the power of the president.
If you agree with my stance, what would you propose as an alternative?
2007-03-01
14:36:01
·
5 answers
·
asked by
M S
5
in
Law & Ethics