- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Imagine a world without attorneys
Posted on 1/27/16 at 2:30 pm to LucasP
Posted on 1/27/16 at 2:30 pm to LucasP
Asking me to respond to something that is so incredibly devoid of thought and reason is ridiculous. The safety and security you experience every day were created in no insignificant part by attorneys.
This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 2:31 pm
0
Posted on 1/27/16 at 2:33 pm to boosiebadazz
This is a better argument than I've seen before, but I would argue that your "grease" is doing more to hinder the engine than lubricate it. When a corporation has to sink resources into an army of corporate lawyers instead of using those resources to actually produces something good for society, it's safe to say it's gotten out of hand. I'd love to carry on but I'm getting out of here. 
Posted on 1/27/16 at 2:36 pm to logjamming
I worked for one of the firms that represented Texas against big tobacco. They were men of the people kind of talkers, hated Bush, always rant about lower taxes unfair to little man fair share shite.
Anyway settle the case and get paid over time I move on to another job and one day see where the frickers had set up some tax scam and were caught bilking the government.
They suck, but I do still call them for tickets to the Cowboys and Rangers on occasion
Anyway settle the case and get paid over time I move on to another job and one day see where the frickers had set up some tax scam and were caught bilking the government.
They suck, but I do still call them for tickets to the Cowboys and Rangers on occasion
Posted on 1/27/16 at 4:09 pm to LucasP
quote:
It's not the lawyer's fault that the system has gotten to this point but there is nothing noble in being a part of it either.
When a jury comes back with a guilty verdict for the guy that raped the 10 year old girl and the family can get some closure, I certainly feel like my job is noble
I guess I'm just wrong
Posted on 1/27/16 at 4:30 pm to Ash Williams
quote:
When a jury comes back with a guilty verdict for the guy that raped the 10 year old girl and the family can get some closure, I certainly feel like my job is noble
Of course the pursuit of justice is a noble endeavor, nobody would ever argue otherwise. I would argue that the court proceedings are the last efficient and least necessary portion of that pursuit. The investigating officers who found the perpetrator and the prison officials who will keep the public safe from him are doing more to pursue that goal than the court system is.
It's unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic. You can't say it couldn't be simplified.
ETA I'm not seeing it's unnecessary, just that it's much more complex than it needs to be.
This post was edited on 1/27/16 at 4:32 pm
Posted on 1/27/16 at 4:32 pm to LucasP
You are equating simpler with better. It would be simpler to just have the arresting officer shoot each suspect in the head and move on. That doesn't, in any way, lead to the conclusion that is a better system
Posted on 1/27/16 at 4:34 pm to LucasP
quote:
It's unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic. You can't say it couldn't be simplified.
But when speaking of the criminal courts, pretty much everything we do comes almost directly from the constitution in order to protect a defendants rights
So if you disagree with the vast majority of that, then your argument is against large portions of the constitution itself
When you start to remove parts of the court process to make it more efficient or streamline it, you're removing constitutional rights
Posted on 1/27/16 at 4:41 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
You are equating simpler with better.
Not exactly, I'm equating resources used versus output. Think of it this way, we have some of the greatest minds in this country being used as lawyers. If we had a simpler system that didn't require their efforts, we could better use these minds researching cancer cures or anything more productive than legal arguments.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 4:46 pm to LucasP
Again this all driven by your ideas that (1) a simpler would system would be as good or better than the current system and (2) that fewer attorneys fixes issues. A simpler system really honestly doesn't mean a better system. That complexity is generally designed to keep like you from being royally fricked by the government, a major corporation, or your neighbor. Secondly simply removing or reducing attorneys from the picture only fricks the system up worse by making it run slower and less efficiently.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 4:58 pm to CorporateTiger
quote:
simpler would system would be as good or better than the current system
If the desired result is fair treatment of citizens and other entities, then yes I think that goal could be best achieved with more simplicity.
If the desired result is a profitable system then yeah the current one is great.
To your second point, I already said I don't have issue with lawyers, my problem is with this absurd system we have.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 5:05 pm to LucasP
So please tell me these practices we could just stop to simplify things without compromising the system's integrity.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 5:17 pm to LucasP
quote:
If the desired result is fair treatment of citizens and other entities, then yes I think that goal could be best achieved with more simplicity.
It would only be a matter of time before a simpler system (or less complex laws) is exposed by someone who finds a loophole (granted, that person is usually a lawyer). However, getting rid of lawyers doesn't fix this problem. People will inherently exploit the grey areas and try to find ways around rules. This leads to legislatures having to write more laws to close the gaps, which eventually leads to a system where only attorneys have a grasp on the system of laws. It didn't start that way, it became that way due to people exploiting gray areas in the law. If you tried to make laws simple and easy to understand then you inherently are giving up comprehension. All you are doing is starting the cycle all over again. People will expose the gaps and something will have to be done.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 5:25 pm to oldcharlie8
Posted on 1/27/16 at 5:53 pm to Hot Carl
quote:
Full disclosure--I am not, have never been, and am not affiliated in any way with--an attorney
I bet you've banged a lawyer or 2.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 5:54 pm to foshizzle
quote:
The Simpsons' favorite lawyer Lionel Hutz
RIP, way to make me sad bro...
Posted on 1/27/16 at 5:55 pm to oldcharlie8
You would actually end up having justice in the courtroom because cases would no longer be about billable hours for lawyers and bullshite legal tactics that allow one to bullshite the jury. If the two parties had to show up like in the peoples court you would get to the truth just about every time if you cut out the lawyer bullshite.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 6:00 pm to LucasP
quote:
I think he means a system where laws are clear enough to not require interpretation. Where average citizens could decipher their meaning, since they are the people supposedly served by those laws.
Lol. Not possible. A law can be written as clear as water and still need a legal mind for interpretation.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 6:21 pm to BamaScoop
You can choose to resolve a disputes through a mediator like the People's Court if you feel that is a better system.
Posted on 1/27/16 at 6:24 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You can choose to resolve a disputes through a mediator like the People's Court if you feel that is a better system.
For a fee.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News