$$$$$$$$$ money honey "the LOVE of money is the root of ALL evil "if you have money you can get away with just about anything--------------------------- but only in this life
2006-09-27 06:00:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The legal system, particularly the criminal side, is based solely on PROCEDURE. It is a system of rules and procedure. If the rules are followed then "justice" is presumed to have been done. Rules and procedure are truly the only things that can be effectively controlled.
For example, prosecutors often are unable to PROVE to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that some crime occurred, even if virtually everyone KNOWS that the defendant is guilty, there are rules about what evidence can and cannot be admitted in court that may prevent some crucial piece from even becoming known to a jury. That is because we have rules about how evidence must be obtained and what can and cannot be presented in court. Therefore, the jury may never even hear that one vital piece of evidence and therefore, the level of proof required (another rule) cannot be obtained. If it can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the jury MUST acquit the defendant even if they believe him to be factually guilty (the "truth"). The rules have been followed, but very often the truth of the matter is sacrificed in the process.
Furthermore, appellate courts only look at questions of violation of procedure, they do not re-examine the facts again. Or do so only in the rarest of circumstances.
Also, the concepts of "guilty" and "not guilty" are legal concepts and not what we think of colloquially. So "guilty" means it was proven to the satisfaction of the jury or judge (or pled to by a defendant who had his own motivation for wanting to avoid a trial) and not guilty does NOT mean the defendant did not DO something. It means merely that the elements of the crime charged could not all be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For example, many crimes have multiple elements (4-5). The jury may believe that 3-4 of the elements were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the final one was not. In that instance, again, they must ACQUIT the defendant according to the rules of the law. This may or may not correspond to what they believe the actual truth is about whether the defendant did what he was accused of.
2006-09-27 04:16:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by jurydoc 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Neither. The primary basis of any legal system is custom and agreement. People need to be able to predict the conduct of other people living in their society. That's what is supplied by the "law," a system of rules of individual conduct that applies to everyone. In more or less "democratic" social systems where everyone is more or less equal, people regard "justice" as having the law apply equally to everyone. In societies based upon individual economic freedom, it is inevitable that people will seek to promote their economic interests at the expense of equal application of the legal system. In our social system which is both democratic and based on individual economic freedom there is always a tension between equal justice & private economic benefit. But that tension exists within the system based on history, custom & mutual agreement of all members.
2006-09-27 04:10:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's based on a civil society's ability to govern itself. It's based on right and wrong (which are issues constantly up for debate).
I don't think it is based on money, although there are many lawyers who take advantage of people in need of legal assistance. And small towns set up speed traps which are constantly filling the local coffers with motorist's money. But, the overall idea of the law is peace and resolve. I think it works pretty well barring the occasional OJ or Jon Benet.
2006-09-27 02:57:26
·
answer #4
·
answered by jaike 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that it is based off money and the power people with the money have. Back in the day when they were writing the constitution and everything, justice was in mind and sought, but in these days money and greed prevails over that whether one will admit it or not.
2006-09-27 03:03:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by wantingtoknow 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
The color of GREEN! If you need legal service and just can't afford the up-front costs or the hourly rate, click the link below. Here you will find a service, which allows you access to an attorney 24/7, Monday - Sunday, and Holidays! With so many benefits included. Please watch the online presentation to see the complete package for less than the price of bottled water!
2006-09-27 02:51:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Legal system is truly based on justice, equity and good conscience. The principles of natural justice forms part of the legal system
2006-09-27 02:47:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by King of the Net 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
In my experience, it was ONLY based on money. My ex has lots of $$$, and he'd win simply by having his lawyer file for delays and extensions, based on some flimsy excuse. Which would cost me more and more $$ until finally I couldn't keep up with him and he'd win by default. It was horrible. My situation seems to be common for all others I've talked to.
2006-09-27 02:52:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Just Ducky 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is based on the English Common Law.
2006-09-27 02:48:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Tony M 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
at one point in time there was true justice, but greed has become an overwhelming factor in law making, jails and prisons for example are not rehabilitating facilities, they are multi-billion dollar businesses, we have too many laws that have nothing to do with protecting people from criminals
2006-09-27 02:56:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Money! There is more justice in the world if you have money. Money is the root of all evil and the gem of all that's good.
2006-09-27 02:45:37
·
answer #11
·
answered by notyours 5
·
0⤊
0⤋