Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Lawyers in Libertaria (attn. Baba & Dan)
Message-ID: <22424@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 13:54:39 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.22424
Posted: Tue Feb 26 13:54:39 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 1-Mar-85 09:20:25 EST
References: <895@ratex.UUCP> <699@unmvax.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 31
Xref: watmath net.politics:7873 net.politics.theory:273

> > > ... the legal code would be so much easier to understand it would
> > > be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play.
> 
> Is it really that hard to imagine a judicial system where the smartest lawyer
> didn't win (unlike what happens today)? or did you not understand the meaning
> of prowess in that sentence?  I would think that anyone would favor such a
> system.  Even if you believe it to be impossible, isn't it more likely that
> a system with fewer laws and a less powerful government would have a fairer
> legal system than one that is clogged with victimless crime laws?


What do victimless crime laws have to do with the question at issue?  Even
if you had a infinite number of 'victimless' crime laws, noone would pay
the least bit of attention to them in the context of a trial concerning the
violation of some other law (murder, for example).  Laws concerning
'victimless' crimes are never even mentioned or referenced (except as
possible motivational material) in a murder trial.

The real reason that lawyer prowess enters into the problem is the number
of confusing and contradictory laws concerning admissibility and use of
evidence.  Trial evidence must be gathered in a particular way, introduced
in a particular order, and the jury (if any) must be advised on its meaning
and relevance.  If any of these are messed up, the appeal will succeed.
Add to this the number of varying degrees of any crime (first degree
murder, second degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, self
defence,...) and it's easy to see how a jury can be swayed by clever
lawyer.  Most of these things were introduced into law in an attempt to
reduce inequities in the legal system.  Perhaps it's time to simplify
though.

J. Giles