I am imagining an alternative legal system, which functions more like the civil courts than the criminal ones. The main difference is that charges msut be pressed by an -individual citizen-, and not by the legal system in general or any group of people. This means that each crime woudl have to have exactly one person who claims to the court that the act in question harmed them in some way. An interested party may act as a proxy when the direct victim can not speak for themselves, but would reasonably want chares pressed, such as murder. There would be three verdicts, guilty, not guilty, and undeterminable. Guilty is straightforward. Undeterminable means that innocence or guilt can not be proven either way, so no action is taken until such time as further evidence is found. Not guilty means the charges were found to be false and baseless, so the accuser is open to libel and slander charges.
There are two main functional differences to my system.
2007-11-20 06:46:25 · 5 answers · asked by juicy_wishun 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
1)It eliinates "victimless crimes". If no one involved is complaining, then chares can't be brought to bear.
2)It forces the courts to prosecute oly crimes that people care about. Under the current system, every crime is -supposed- to be given full attention, even if no one particularly wants to prosecute the criminal. Such as the assassination of a local crime lord, who everyone agrees is better off dead. Under my system, if not even one person will speak for the victim, the crime is not pursued, and the resources go elsewhere.
It's not perfect, by a loooooong shot. But I think it has potential, what do you think?
2007-11-20 06:50:54 · update #1
Develop this theme and you can write a book on a utopian legal system.
Not a chance of it being implemented in a large modern country though. A Criminal offends not only the victim, but every law-abiding member of society (someone said that - not sure who). Also, no one would ever be found not guilty. All cases would be undeterminable or the not-guilty finding would be overturned when the libel charges were undeterminable. Had you considered that witnesses to crimes would be hard to find, since they could be held civilly liable?
2007-11-20 07:03:26 · answer #1 · answered by BruceN 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The system seems to have resonances with the Napoleonic Legal System.
I foresee several problems with it, as portrayed.
It ignores the quality of evidence.
It ignores the incidence of anti-social crimes.
It offers too much scope for what is, today known as "Vexatious Litigants"
It also ignores the fact that individuals bring prosecutions more for revenge than cold, impartial justice!
Prosecuting an individual for the failure of a charge, brought in good faith, is not a good idea. Such decisions need proper consideration by experts in law and due process, on an individual basis.
Frankly your idea stinks.
2007-11-20 06:56:23 · answer #2 · answered by Bob P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What a load of mixed up rubbish. Most of us are incapable of carrying out a proper investigation. You would do away with the protect of proving beyond all reasonable doubt and go for a verdict on the balance of the evidence. The verdict of unproven is used in the Scottish Courts I do not know how frequently. You have missed out expert witnesses.
2007-11-20 06:53:48 · answer #3 · answered by Scouse 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That sounds reasonable to me. By excluding the lawyers justice will be served. As it stands the American justice system is based on your bank account. How much you pay a lawyer determines how guilty you are. Sad isn't it?
2007-11-20 06:51:13 · answer #4 · answered by Steven D 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
oh no u killed kennie!!!
2007-11-20 06:48:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋