Posts
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.
