Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hoptoad.UUCP!gnu From: gnu@hoptoad.UUCP (John Gilmore) Newsgroups: mod.legal Subject: Re: killing all the lawyers Message-ID: <8607251307.AA03538@hoptoad.uucp> Date: Fri, 25-Jul-86 09:07:31 EDT Article-I.D.: hoptoad.8607251307.AA03538 Posted: Fri Jul 25 09:07:31 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jul-86 21:29:19 EDT References: <8607171214.ae23797@SEM.BRL.ARPA> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 81 Approved: info-law@brl.arpa In article <8607171214.ae23797@SEM.BRL.ARPA>, ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET writes: > It is roughly equivalent to blaming the > undertaker because your loved one has died... > I also object to the feeling that lawyers are responsible > for the laws they work with. It would be just as sensible > to blame doctors treating cancer patients for having created > cancer. Lawyers work with law as it is, not as they wish it > were. It is the duty of the citizenry to abolish those laws > they find repugnant and enforce those they find agreeable. > It is the job of the legal system to discern the intent of > statutes and practice accordingly. If you want to reform > the legal system, start with the law, not the legal > profession. I find this to be very self-serving. There seems to be a strong correlation between lawyers and lawmakers. How many members of Congress have practiced law? How many judges have practiced law? Now don't tell me lawyers are not responsible. I *know* it's not English majors drafting those laws! It would be great if I could "start by reforming the law" but since I have you here reading my words, let's start with you. "The law" doesn't seem to listen to me very well. My view of the main problem is that people wrote the law as a way to control other people. I don't want to be controlled. It seems that the inevitable trend (in a society that values precedents) is for more laws, more attempts at control, and less freedom. The only widely acknowledged way to repudiate the precedents seems to be revolution. [E.g. the world thinks it's OK for a new government to not honor the old one's ideas, but if there is continuity in the government, it it held to the precedents, treaties, procedures, etc. that it made before.] Another problem is that recently the law has been trying to fix blame for things to specific individuals, and provide specific redress to people who claim to be injured. In many cases, the process of providing redress is vastly more expensive to society and the individuals than the original problem. Insurance is a great example here; in California many public events have had to be canceled because the city could not afford to insure itself against suits. This is because laws and courts (run by lawyers) have set up precedents where if a firecracker falls on your toe during Chinese New Year you can sue the city for $500,000 and win. Laura Creighton has a friend who had a large hole dug (for a future swimming pool) in their backyard. It was surrounded by a chain link fence. One winter a snowmobilist came by, CUT THE FENCE and entered, fell into the hole, and was critically injured. The friend ran out, called an ambulance and because of this the guy survived. When the cops arrived on the scene, they said "You should have just let him die in that hole" and they thought wow, what callous cops we have. Well, the guy sued them for having a dangerous location lying around and WON and they get to support him for the rest of his life. I don't understand how that can be called just, but lawyers argued the case and lawyers judged the case and wrote the laws that set the stage and look what happened. Another recent bad trend (still reading?) is the idea that you should be arrested and jailed for "looking like you are about to commit a crime". E.g. if you drive down the road drunk, you are jailed. You haven't killed any kids, you haven't sideswiped any trees, you were just driving down the road and it's time to go to jail. Bullshit it is. How about "possession with intent to XXX"? It's not legal to blow up other peoples' buildings, so let's make it illegal to have dynamite. The point is that no harm has been caused ("YET" say the lawyers) so why are you bothering these people? Catch the driver who kills a kid and put him away for 30 years, or execute him for all I care -- but don't do it because he was drunk. Do it because he hurt somebody. > ...there > are people whose knowledge of the workings of their > government, including the law, is so dismal that, literally, > they should be prevented from voting. Gee, I think it's the people who *know* how the law works who should be prevented from voting. What they have created is not working very well, let's let some fresh minds give it a try. PS: The idea that you, the citizen, are responsible for knowing the text and meaning and current interpretation of every law on the books is another great fuckup in the current law. Not even the judges and lawyers and congresspeople know this stuff, how is the average citizen expected to?