Or rather, what is in it for them? Why would they allow frivolous lawsuits or bogus cases any consideration? I understand a lawyer might defend clients for the paycheck or recognition for winning an absurd case. I can see how a plaintiff or defendant would like to cash in on or weasel through a loophole, but what exactly does the judge have to gain?
I can’t imagine it would be a shining career move to decide McDonald’s coffee is so hot that it warrants millions to a clumsy individual. Perhaps a jury decided on this case. I don’t remember. For that matter, are jurors selectively bred and chosen for their deranged rationale?
There are numerous cases to cite examples from: the thief who sues the homeowner for injuries sustained while breaking and entering, the drug trafficker who is pardoned and apologized to because of improper arrest procedures, or how about the killer who is released because they claimed insanity. Couldn’t we reason this defense for all crimes? Of course they’re insane, they senselessly murdered someone!
Our laws are open to far too much interpretation, and it seems that too many people exploit this.
That is probably enough ranting for one question. Consider all but the title question rhetorical if you like.
What is in it for the judge?
2007-03-05
12:57:46
·
4 answers
·
asked by
treefish
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics