The court system, with lawyers paid based on winning over finding the truth, for example, needs reform.?

Question

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?

Answer 1

While this system is not perfect it is the best that we got. Justice often takes a back seat to money.

Answer 2

First, in most jurisdictions, lawyers can be punished if they omit the truth. Except for privilege issues (confidential communications), most states require lawyers to be candid with the court. Failure to do so is grounds for sanctions, and potentially losing their license.

As far as the rest, you're describing the adversarial system. That's what the US (and Australia and Canada) inherited from the British, centuries ago. Two advocates, each taking opposite sides, argue until one proves their case.

The problem is, the alternatives have been tried, and are generally worse. It's like the old joke about democracy being the worst form of government -- except for all the rest.

As long as people act on emotion, and have personal agendas, and want to win -- you'll never have a neutral fair objective search for the truth. So, the best you can do is have the sides both trying to prove their side of things, and try to get as close as possible to a neutral decision maker. In other words, try to minimize human nature.

Answer 3

You are just talking about the defense lawyers. Prosecutors don't get paid nearly as much. Also, a lot of lawyers are required to provide pro bono services...free of charge. But, even the poor can get a lawyer, maybe not the best, but at least they get one. More than can be said for other countries. And, how can you say that about judges? Do you solely watch Judge Judy? You can't possibly know every judge out there and assume they rule based on emotions. Yeah, some do...most don't.

Answer 4

The reality is that life is not fair to everyone. Unfortunately, we all need to hire a lawyer soon or later for something. Lawyers are like everything in life, there are good ones and there are bad ones.
Innocent until proven guilty. If guilty but cannot be proven than this guilty person is innocent according to the system.

Reality is not beautiful but life goes on with everything in it.

Answer 5

for sure we favor reform yet i'm no longer positive how. some comments on your thoughts. a million. provide up punishing victimless crime. do not punish the alcoholic, punish the inebriated who is going utilizing. we do not penal complicated human beings for alcohol intake in simple terms their ensuing movements. i.e. inebriated utilizing, robbery, kin violence etc. 2. enable criminals to go back to society and not using a social stigma. They paid their debt.Society no longer the authorities "inflicts" the stigma, it really is fantastically a lot as a lot as us. 3. grant rehab classes as a replace of incarceration. do you pick to computer screen human beings sit down in day holiday and fraternize with different criminals, or redeem them? i'm with you the following, for non-violent offenders in effortless words. 4. provide up with the death penalty. both exile the worst offenders, or construct an section the position they're regularly housed for life outdoors of our society. Exile? Do you've a united states of america in thoughts? we've equipped an section like you advise, we call them prisions. i'm w/ you the following too, it really is more affordable than the death penalty appeals procedure, it does no longer act as a deterrent and we get the incorrect individual way toio regularly. 5. provide authorities jobs to criminals that led to harm which will pay decrease back the victims plus interest. They do no reliable to absolutely everyone rotting in a cellular. With one of those huge quantity of non felons searching for jobs this one is a non-starter 6. do some thing about the present regulation equipment so justice isn't in accordance to who has the acceptable criminal specialist. in the different case huge organizations, politicians, and wealthy human beings will frequently be above the regulation, and poorly represented human beings will continually go in the route of the completed slap of the lengthy arm of the regulation. sure our equipment of justice is incorrect, unhappy to say it really is likewise between the acceptable interior the international. We ought to address the underlying motives of crime, poverty, drug and alcohol habit, get entry to to guns etc. obviously locking up a wide % of our teens isn't operating.