this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
444 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37717 readers
421 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is there really a realistic way to do it differently? Situations ending up in court are complex and ambiguous. It's never a simple "if this then that" kind of thing. So in the end it's about making arguments and convincing each other. Different people have different skills and depending how you match up, arguments are lost or won. There will always ever be a limited amount of extremely skillful people. Even if you would make sure that money isn't a barrier, time/availability will still be and so still most people will end up with inadequate council.
If a justice system is so hard to use that only a small portion of the trained professionals can do it adequately it needs a massive overhaul. This of course is basically impossible and won’t happen. The US is a particularly bad case because of the sheer outdatedness of its constitution an court procedures.
I think most laws started out simple. Reality isn't simple, however. And I would bet that any attempt to simplify it will be adjusted over time and will end up being just as complicated again.
I mean, the law could be simple in the sense that it basically says "don't to stupid shit". But then it just becomes more subjective which in the end will be even less fair.
All the complexity in the law comes from the attempts to make it as fair and objective as possible.
So if simplification isn't a good way of making it so that poor people aren't more likely to get screwed over in courts, what is? ~Strawberry
Don't have a society that gives all the power to people who have the most imaginary tokens. Don't assign and apportion legal counsel according to money but instead according to need. Like, obviously I'm criticising capitalism, but your question assumes capitalism is here to stay.
Of course, under capitalism this will never happen, because the legislature is thoroughly captured by capital, and they are quite happy with lawyers being extremely expensive and siloed away in massive corporate legal teams.
Now of course none of what I am suggesting is going to be easy, quick, or absolute, which I mention just to head off the inevitable critcisms along those lines from people who find it easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. As Ursula K le Guin said, "We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings."
It does not. In my last sentence I specifically said "Even if you would make sure that money isn’t a barrier", which rules out capitalism. So in a system where everyone has equal access to everything, you still only have a limited amount of skilled people with the right profession. If there are currently 1000 first-degree-murder cases where life sentences are on the line, and you only have 10 extremely good lawyers ... 990 people will still end up worse than the 10 that had the luck (!!) to get these 10 good lawyers assigned.
I'm sorry, can you outline for me how you get to a world with 1000 first degree murder cases for every 10 competent lawyers? This isn't mad max. If you want to raise an issue you need to explain why it's a genuine problem anyone should care about.
As it is right now, lawyers are monopolised by the richest & most powerful. In a world where we don't have enormous armies of corporate lawyers - who generally hate their jobs because they know they contribute nothing to society - we would have a lot more competent people available to do real jobs. Removing money from the equation helps both of these problems.
I didn't say "competent", I said "extremely good". We have hundreds of thousands of competent lawyers. But the rich can typically afford to get the absolute best there are, not "just" competent. But over-the-top competent. Lawyers who don't just handle this case as one of many, but who put private investigators and what-not on their pay roll to get everything they need to do the absolute best for their client. Who have, on top of their experience and resources also lots of connections.
Your description of "extremely good" boils down to "extremely well-funded".
If you actually think that the most expensive lawyers and firms get results because they are just so "extremely good", you've probably bought into another capitalist lie of meritocracy. This just sounds like you fantasising again about a world that would make you right if it existed, but it doesn't.