Excerpt from Chapter 7 -- Reforming the Legal System

Chapter 7 -- Pages 139-140

Let’s get back to the legal system reforms.  Lawyers in general, had allowed their industry to get completely out of hand in the late twentieth century.  There was no sense of law in what they did and ultimately there was a distinct lack of contribution, and I’ll go as far as to say ethics in their actions.  Lawyers were in my mind in the early twenty-first century, the biggest sponges on society and sucked more value and goodness out of American culture than any other group or professional sector in history.

Lawyers had taken the concept of right to defense and due diligence to overshadow any other aspect of their being.  Right to defense meant doing anything and everything possible to create a measure of doubt in the minds of the jury.  In worst case scenarios, they went as far as to corrupt the entire spirit of the legal system.  This situation of course was vehemently opposed by me personally as I could never see the value of taking advantage of weaknesses in the system and then to utilize that as a defense.  Also, there was the need for judges and government to correct the weaknesses in the system, rather than just exacerbating them and making the weaknesses even more pronounced, such that it became an open flood gate for inequity.

The premise of defendant’s rights was way more important than the victim’s rights.  I always thought this was a gross betrayal of the American legal system that the upstanding citizen that has been hurt by some part of society is not protected at a minimum as much as the defendant.  I fully support the notion that all people are equal before the law, but the victims have already suffered some type of injury and, as a result, should not be subject to increased subjugation during the trial phase.  Hence the emphasis on punishment and retribution for crimes committed.  The victim should always have a sense of justice and compensation upon a guilty finding.

As with the deterrence for frivolous lawsuits by citizens, lawyers who participated in bringing forth a frivolous lawsuit were penalized within the context of the legal system itself.  The legal group responsible for regulating the conduct of its own members embraced a position of contribution over time when they put in place a scholarly and principled type of person to deliver this mandate.  He devised a system whereby contribution was a measured quality.  Along with the new measurement criteria, lawyers were graded as to their competency across certain areas of expertise.  This ultimately led to the legal standards for compensation as well as an access point for people who had been the victim of criminal activity.

This point system was developed so that lawyers who brought forward legitimate cases, argued them in the context of the law and instituted new thinking in terms of the statutes were graded the highest.  Lawyers who brought forward frivolous lawsuits, argued them in context of non-legal issues and relied on precedent, were summarily given lower scores.  

Why Does Justice Take So Long?

The entirety of the judicial process needs to be shortened such that criminal activity is dealt with in a reasonable and effective manner.

The most important thing that has to happen is that the time lines associated with the process must be shortened.

No criminal trial should ever last more than a year from the time of the infraction. This is possible if the following tactics are implemented. One, lawyers on either side are compensated by determining the truth. Two, the police are given broader abilities to investigate crime and to collect evidence and three the judiciary simply works harder.

Conceptually, the idea of plausibility has to be eliminated.  The notion of reasonable doubt has clouded the legal system as defense lawyers create any myriad of arguments to create an image of innocence. They genuinely create artificial circumstances to cast doubt on the guilt of the accused with no bearing on the facts at all. This should be considered a highly unethical and a catastrophic abandonment of legal principal.

Also, the legal system seems more than willing to take into account mitigating circumstances. Why? If the crime is committed than punishment is warranted.  Though one can argue as to the compassionate nature of our society by considering the factors that might lead to violent crime they should not be admitted as they just cloud the issue at hand i.e. guilt or innocence and take up time.

The first step to changing the system is to have lawyers on both sides of the process paid by how well they arrive at the actual circumstances of the case.  The notion of guilt and innocence needs to go away.  The defense is obligated to provide evidence it collects and witness statements including those from the accused into the trial.  The defense should never be considered a process to create excuses for the action, twist the facts and in worse case even create lies.  The accused also needs to be required to take the stand in all trials.


Lady Justice is symbolic of being blind to the equitable nature of who is the accused rather than being blind to the truth itself.  The framers of the Constitution envisioned a system of judicial equality not one where the truth is incidental.

Marriage: It's Not Forever

As the divorce rate in America hovers around 50% it is obvious that many people do not like the idea of life time marriage.  This does not mean however, that people do not want to be married. The goal then should be to create a system whereby marriage is entered into without the lifetime commitment aspect already in place.

Therefore, a new system needs to put in place whereby the original marriage license would have a term of 7 years.

If the marriage is not to be continued beyond the 7 year period then all that needs to be done is that documentation be submitted by the parties involved. It does not matter if one partner wants to remain married, the other is able to end the marriage unilaterally. If the couple opts to remain together than nothing needs to be done and an automatic renewal period of 5 years would be added to the marriage period.

As a means of encouraging long-term marriage, a series of tax incentives would be developed by each of the individual states to keep couples together. As well, one time administrative costs of $2,500 per partner would be warranted at the time of marriage dissolution.  This fee serves as not only a minor deterrent but as a revenue stream to self-fund the cost of operations.

Distribution of marital assets would be conducted based on legal title holding and tax returns.  For example, if homes are in both names then it is split.  If the home is one persons name then they keep it. This deters splitting assets for taxation purposes and keeps them assigned as they should be. Income derived during the marriage remains the income of the earner.  Child support would be legally mandatory and cannot be over-looked under any circumstances by either party.

The goal of termed marriage licenses is two-fold. One, to decrease the spirit of acrimonious break-up between people and two, to reduce the costs involved to the individuals by reducing the involvement of the legal profession.  By removing the life time portion and making it easier to separate, people do not have to endure the strained and quite often prolonged impact on their lives.

Just the Facts: A New Goal For Criminal Trials

The ultimate goal of any criminal trial should solely be to determine what actually happened.

The prosecution as well as the defense has to have equal onus on identifying the facts and then coming to a conclusion as to guilt or innocence of the accused.  The concept of reasonable doubt needs to be eliminated such that genuine criminal activity is punished rather than excused.

Criminal lawyers on both side of the table need to be evaluated and subsequently compensated for their ability to arrive at the actual conclusion i.e. the truth, and circumstances of the crime rather than merely trying to prove guilt or innocence.  In the modern world, no criminal should ever win their freedom as a result of simply having a better lawyer.  An innocent verdict when someone is actually guilty should never be a result that the criminal justice system permits.