Philip Howard: Four ways to fix a broken legal system

wimp.com ^ | MARCH 01,2010 | swampsniper

[SWAMPSNIPER]

An analysis.

[ConservativeMind]

Do you have a summary of the points? I don’t really want to have to watch 20 minutes of video to get the point of your post.

Thanks.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

It’s your choice! The first couple of minutes should give you some idea.

[longtermmemmory]

I can tell you two of them as a best guess:

1 loser pays= the mistaken notion that we don’t already have this is civil contract law and that it would not matter since most cases the plaintiff is so poor, bankrupcty is inevetiable without the case.

2 caps= IOW give hospital and big dollar defendants an easy way to starve out plaintiffs. If they know there is a 250k cap, then they will fight to the bitter end knowing they can use their limitless resources to grind a plaintiff into bankruptcy and then settle for pennies with the trustee.

[ConservativeMind]

There was no information given about this thread, and the poster is insisting on not giving any help, so here are the points from the video that matter:

1. Adopt Scottish Law
2. Impose strict driving limits on all attorneys
3. Annex New Zealand
4. Disarm victims

[tsomer]

To hell with Phillip Howard,

I’ll tell you how it needs to be done:

1. Increase Jurors compensation to $100 per day to obtain productive, intelligent jurors.

2. Finance this increase by:
-limiting the #of prospective jurors 50 %
-limiting the # of jurors each side can summarily dismiss
-impose a tax on all lawyers fees of 10% or so.
-impose a preliminary fee of 15% of any settlement reached before trial, and 25% on any judgement awarded after trial.
These fees are to be shared by both parties for pre-trial settlements, and levied exclusively on the guilty party of the verdict.

This will never happen, so I’ll never be proven wrong.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

"Productive, intelligent jurors" aren't being produced by the educational system in any large numbers. Each time I've had jury duty was a lesson in terror.

I was on a grand jury involved in a murder case. The victim was shot from behind multiple times as she worked at a computer. I was asking questions about the gun, a 9mm Glock, and about where the empty cases were found. A ditzy female juror with a NYC accent blurted out, "do you have to talk about guns, this is making me sick"?

In my opinion she should have been sent home right away.

The perp was guilty but the case deserved intelligent and knowledgeable consideration, not emotion based wildass guesses.

[paul51]

first we hang the lawyers.....then we take a hard look at the code. Do we need thousands of laws to live sane, productive and happy lives? Not if we don’t have all the lawyers and politicians that write them and use them to enrich and empower themselves.