- 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: OT attorneys, how would YOU fix court system?
Posted on 2/7/17 at 7:51 am to Antonio Moss
Posted on 2/7/17 at 7:51 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
No elected judges
I agree but there are plenty of states that appoint judges that are still a shite show.
1
Posted on 2/7/17 at 7:51 am to SamuelClemens
decriminalize all victimless crimes for a start
Posted on 2/7/17 at 7:56 am to coolneal
quote:
Loser pays system.. they pay all costs from attny fees, tests needed all the way to ink pens used at the courthouse. This would stop dumb trials and insurance coverage would come down.
No one involved in the system wants this. Non-starter.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:07 am to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
No one involved in the system wants this. Non-starter.
Pretty much. No one goes to Court thinking they will lose, so I'm not sure why people are so sure this will shorten dockets.
Personally, once I accepted that the Courts are made up human people doing human stuff, including making mistakes, and got over the ideal of a "perfect" system I was much less frustrated. You'll see some dumb shite happen in our courts if you look hard enough, but by and large, we have one of, if not the best, systems in the world.
On top of that, much of our system is what it is at this point. It was established by our Founding Fathers, and arguably even prior to Constitution (although obviously the rights contained therein were not present until the Con. was signed). We could play with procedural rules, but for the most part, the grand scheme of our system is not up for change.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:09 am to coolneal
quote:
As far as the scenario you stated above. I feel all murder cases should be held as a panel of three judges. Jury should only decide punishment not wither a person is guilty. There's a big difference in today's time to when these laws were written. The biggest being education. No one can convince me that billy bob down the road understands the law better then educated lawyers/judges.
A person can always opt for a bench trial (assuming the prosecution agrees to it; it's both parties right to a jury trial), but a jury trial is their right. Then you are afforded an automatic direct appeal, which goes before, at minimum, a panel of three appellate judges, who should be among the smartest legal minds in that jurisdiction.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:10 am to SamuelClemens
The key problems are the judges and court costs. So few judges now have a judicial temperament. Most don't want to decide anything and/or lookout for friends or "popular" attorneys. Law or facts, ha! Go sit in CDC or anywhere on a rule day and watch shitty judges make shitty decisions all morning long.
Filing costs are nuts.
I've conciously and intentionally moved from a 95%+ litigation practice to a 75%+ office practice because we have such poor judges, with notably very few exceptions.
Filing costs are nuts.
I've conciously and intentionally moved from a 95%+ litigation practice to a 75%+ office practice because we have such poor judges, with notably very few exceptions.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:11 am to SamuelClemens
Loser of a civil suit is forced to pay all court costs
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:13 am to TigernMS12
If you think appellate judges are the smartest legal minds in that jurisdiction, you've never dealt with most appeal courts in the state.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:21 am to LSUTigersVCURams
No one is being "stopped for suspicion of having weed." All of your marijuana arrests occur when someone is pulled over during a traffic stop and it's billowing out of the car. That's also when they find people who have outstanding warrants. Resources are not being devoted to policing marijuana or jailing people for marijuana.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:22 am to TheCurmudgeon
quote:
If you think appellate judges are the smartest legal minds in that jurisdiction, you've never dealt with most appeal courts in the state.
I've dealt with both within my State jurisdiction. All are former Circuit judges or Chancellors, and while I wouldn't call them the best trial strategists (because they've not done it in quite some time), they are some of the brightest legal minds we have. Sure they're are others that are extremely bright, but as far as knowing the law, there is not a collective group that is MORE knowledgable.
I doubt you have dealt with appeals courts in my State in any regular capacity, so I'm curious as to what makes you say that.
This post was edited on 2/7/17 at 8:23 am
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:27 am to SamuelClemens
Make the 4th Amendment have meaningful weight again.
And legalize pot.
And legalize pot.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:28 am to SamuelClemens
quote:
We all know it's the best system . . .
Really? How do we know that? To the extent that anyone thinks that, it's not due to any comparison of the results with the criminal justice systems of the other developed nations.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:30 am to Breesus
quote:
Loser of a civil suit is forced to pay all court costs
What about in a car crash case? How do you define "losing?"
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:43 am to tLSU
quote:
All of your marijuana arrests occur when someone is pulled over during a traffic stop and it's billowing out of the car
Not true at all. Sure there are cases where it's billowing out of the car, but I'd say that most cases come from cops using a minor traffic violation as a reason for search and find weed...then, what may be a ticket for speeding turns into a possession charge and puts that person in the system. It's a huge waste of money and resources.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:45 am to theronswanson
quote:
What about in a car crash case? How do you define "losing?"
I'm guessing in a comparative negligence case the loser would pay the percentage difference in fees and costs as the actual award. I'm against the English rule all together though.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:53 am to LSUTigersVCURams
quote:
I agree but there are plenty of states that appoint judges that are still a shite show.
Can't let perfect be the enemy of better
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:57 am to theronswanson
Rear end collision is an automatic loss. But you still go to trial when the plaintiff is being unreasonable.
If they demand $300k for a couple months of chiro, and we go to trial and the jury award is for $10k, that's a win. But I'd still have to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees on top?
Under this system, most cases of clear liability would go to trial, just so the plaintiff's attorney could get their legal fees covered.
If they demand $300k for a couple months of chiro, and we go to trial and the jury award is for $10k, that's a win. But I'd still have to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees on top?
Under this system, most cases of clear liability would go to trial, just so the plaintiff's attorney could get their legal fees covered.
Posted on 2/7/17 at 8:58 am to shotcaller1
quote:
quote: decriminalize marijuana. Nahh
Why not?
Should we also criminalize alcohol?
Posted on 2/7/17 at 9:00 am to SamuelClemens
quote:
So flaming aside: How would you fix the court system in the U.S.?
start actually enforcing our laws that punish the government and its agents for doing illegal things
perjury is a terrible scourge and the cops/prosecutors know they're never going to get called out on it
there are also some technical, procedural and evidentiary rules that can be changed to may the system more even
Posted on 2/7/17 at 9:05 am to TigernMS12
quote:
No one goes to Court thinking they will lose,
not true. many personal injury cases involve a defense that knows they're going to lose the case, but the actual conflict is the amount of damages they're responsible for. could you imagine what personal injury lawyers would do if they knew they had slam dunk liability and that when they won at trial they'd get their fees paid in addition to the damages their client receives? you'd get MORE trials and higher settlements to avoid trial
insurance companies don't want this
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News