Guest guest Posted January 22, 2004 Report Share Posted January 22, 2004 On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:05:39 -0500 " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote: >If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of >the court costs. True. But this should also apply to the state, the so-called representatives of the people. If the state charges someone with crime, i.e. lawsuit, then robs them of their freedom and their money before trial by virtue of bail; perhaps strips them of their life savings because unlike the state, which has an unlimited pocketbook by virtue of stealing through taxes from the citizenry, private citizens have no such vein to ore, and must pay for legal defense with their own funds; and yet the state loses in court, they (the state) should reimburse that person for all costs, including time lost from work. As it is the state is legally immunized from having to do any such thing. Imagine the abuse that engenders. >Doctor shortages may not be all bad. When surgeons have gone on strike the >death rate at that hospital goes down. This has happened several times. The >doctors did only emergency surgeries. Doctor shortages. Government shutdowns. Heck, during war the mental hospitals *voluntarily* empty out in nations under attack. In other words people seem to get well awfully quick. Some apparently bad things do have a silver lining <g> Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 , > The problem with this Judith is that right - as determined by the court - > is > not always right. It happens on occasion that innocent people are found > guilty, and guilty people are found innocent. The DNA testing that came to > be has brought about the release of a lot of people from prison who had been > found guilty years before. Doesn't putting someone on death row dwarf the monetary court costs they'd be required to pay? If someone is found innocent, they can be refunded the money, but they can never be refunded the time or experience spent in jail. So I don't see your point. It seems that if we followed your logic, we'd simply rule out all forms of punishment wrought by the court system. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 In a message dated 1/23/04 10:19:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, vslk@... writes: > How can police be seen > as " ineffective " because of things like " cooling off " periods? Did anyone say that? I'm guessing this is directed at me, because I think I'm the only one that mentioned " cooling off " periods. I didn't mean to imply that this was any fault of the police officers whatsoever. My criticism of police is not a personal criticism of the officer per se, but a criticism of the institutional framework within which they work. I think police officers often do great things. But my experience is that they generally do considerably more harm than good-- largely no fault of their own, but the fault of the institutions within which they operate. But the fact is that a police officer simply cannot protect the majority of people who find themselves in a violent situation. If they can, great! They're heroes for doing so. But, like in Heidi's example, no police officer would be able to help her sister once her husband pulled a gun on her in their home. There's no reason policing duties can't be contracted out to voluntary consumers. This way the police force would put a higher premium on innovating, reducing costs, and could be contractually responsible for responding to the plights of their consumers. posted a great article on how a private corporation with a private police force turned a crime-ridden park into an urban oasis. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 You'll get no argument from me on that one! Judith Alta -----Original Message----- From: slethnobotanist@... [mailto:slethnobotanist@...] On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:05:39 -0500 " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote: >If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of >the court costs. True. But this should also apply to the state, the so-called representatives of the people. If the state charges someone with crime, i.e. lawsuit, then robs them of their freedom and their money before trial by virtue of bail; perhaps strips them of their life savings because unlike the state, which has an unlimited pocketbook by virtue of stealing through taxes from the citizenry, private citizens have no such vein to ore, and must pay for legal defense with their own funds; and yet the state loses in court, they (the state) should reimburse that person for all costs, including time lost from work. As it is the state is legally immunized from having to do any such thing. Imagine the abuse that engenders. [snip] Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:05:39 -0500 " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote: >If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of >the court costs. The problem with this Judith is that right - as determined by the court - is not always right. It happens on occasion that innocent people are found guilty, and guilty people are found innocent. The DNA testing that came to be has brought about the release of a lot of people from prison who had been found guilty years before. A bad lawyer can lose a case for a person when a better lawyer would have won it. An individual suing a corporation frequently has the disadvantage of monetary resources. Many factors can prejudice a jury and judge such as race so verdicts can be unfairly ruled in different situations. Also, while legal laws are based on morals, not all laws are moral and not all morals are laws. So just because a person loses a law suit, does not mean that they were necessarily wrong in filing it. The courts are run by human beings who are not perfect. Even with a jury of 12, they are subject to the confines of their humanness and the limitations of their perceptions of things. My state has what are known as frivolous lawsuits. In such situations, a person who was sued can turn around and sue the person back for all expenses by substantiating there was no reasonable basis to the suit. Many of the problems are the result of laws and their being manipulated or exploited by lawyers. Laws can be rewritten. Tort reform comes up in political elections but few politicians do anything about it. It is also up to the courts as to whether they will even hear cases. If there is not reasonable basis to suits, they are not suppose to be proceeded on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 So true. The spoils often go to the ones with the most money. And to he** with the financially disadvantaged. And no one ever said that life was fair. : ( And that is exactly why I will never vote for capital punishment. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:05:39 -0500 " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote: >If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay ALL of >the court costs. The problem with this Judith is that right - as determined by the court - is not always right. It happens on occasion that innocent people are found guilty, and guilty people are found innocent. The DNA testing that came to be has brought about the release of a lot of people from prison who had been found guilty years before. A bad lawyer can lose a case for a person when a better lawyer would have won it. An individual suing a corporation frequently has the disadvantage of monetary resources. Many factors can prejudice a jury and judge such as race so verdicts can be unfairly ruled in different situations. Also, while legal laws are based on morals, not all laws are moral and not all morals are laws. So just because a person loses a law suit, does not mean that they were necessarily wrong in filing it. The courts are run by human beings who are not perfect. Even with a jury of 12, they are subject to the confines of their humanness and the limitations of their perceptions of things. My state has what are known as frivolous lawsuits. In such situations, a person who was sued can turn around and sue the person back for all expenses by substantiating there was no reasonable basis to the suit. Many of the problems are the result of laws and their being manipulated or exploited by lawyers. Laws can be rewritten. Tort reform comes up in political elections but few politicians do anything about it. It is also up to the courts as to whether they will even hear cases. If there is not reasonable basis to suits, they are not suppose to be proceeded on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:05:39 -0500 > & quot;Judith Alta & quot; & lt;jaltak@... & gt; wrote: > > & gt;If the person who brings the lawsuit loses they should have to pay > ALL of & gt;the court costs. > > > The problem with this Judith is that right - as determined by the court > - is not always right.It happens on occasion that innocent people > are found guilty, and guilty people are found innocent. ***************************************************************** Yes - thank you for saying that! My husband is a police officer, and a mighty fine person, who sometimes comes home from court demoralized because a drunk driver he arrested has gotten off. Yes, some lawyers are definately more effective than others. And, obviously, it is not in their job description to really care whether or not their client has actually committed the crime... Also, my husband was one of three officers who nearly lost their lives this past October protecting an estranged wife from her husband (maybe drunk...) who showed up threatening her, and had many guns in his possession. The wife and officers survived the confrontation, the husband did not. I thank God he was the only one killed. How can police be seen as " ineffective " because of things like " cooling off " periods? They have nothing to do with that. Police enforce laws, don't make them, and often laws such as " cooling off " periods are passed through in response to a specific case in which the cooling off would have helped...Whether or not an officer is " effective " at a domestic call has to do with so many factors...in what point of the confrontation the call to police comes in, what weapons are involved, response time, state of mind of those involved... Anyway, can't believe I came out of " lurkdom " on this list to discuss something so unrelated to native nutrition, but the scare in October is still fresh enough that I couldn't resist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 >Also, my husband was one of three officers who nearly lost their lives >this past October protecting an estranged wife from her husband (maybe >drunk...) who showed up threatening her, and had many guns in his >possession. The wife and officers survived the confrontation, the husband >did not. I thank God he was the only one killed. How can police be seen >as " ineffective " because of things like " cooling off " periods Judith: Thanks for " coming out of lurkdom " to say that, and you get my respect for being the wife of an officer. The police really don't get the respect they deserve ... but they've saved the day enough in my own circle of people that I don't even mind the occasional traffic ticket ... ;--) It's a good point that they don't get a choice of which laws to enforce. THAT is a really hard position, enforcing laws you may or may not agree with. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Slight misunderstanding. vslk@... wrote that post, but did not sign in. But I will second your comments, Heidi. Judith Alta -----Original Message----- From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...] >Also, my husband was one of three officers who nearly lost their lives >this past October protecting an estranged wife from her husband (maybe >drunk...) who showed up threatening her, and had many guns in his >possession. The wife and officers survived the confrontation, the husband >did not. I thank God he was the only one killed. How can police be seen >as " ineffective " because of things like " cooling off " periods Judith: Thanks for " coming out of lurkdom " to say that, and you get my respect for being the wife of an officer. The police really don't get the respect they deserve ... but they've saved the day enough in my own circle of people that I don't even mind the occasional traffic ticket ... ;--) It's a good point that they don't get a choice of which laws to enforce. THAT is a really hard position, enforcing laws you may or may not agree with. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2004 Report Share Posted January 23, 2004 Heidi: " but they've saved the day enough in my own circle of people that I don't even mind the occasional traffic ticket ... ;--) " *************************************** Thanks for the kind words. My husband and I joke that traffic tickets are the reason that firefighters are infinately more popular than police officers...they get to save the day all the time but never have to slap wrists!! ;o) Just friendly rivalry to be sure. Sorry for not signing my original post... Vivian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.