namelesstavern.net

I would first get rid of jurys. Many people do not want to surve on them, the only they want while on them is for the trial to end so they can go home. Instead of 1 judge you should have between 5 and 9 judges (odd number of course).

Very harsh penalties for repeat offenders.

Prisoners should work, prison life can be far to easy in many cases. Prisoners should not receive college education, however should be aided in aceiving GED's.

Inherently flawed right off the bat...

I shouldn't have to pay court costs if I lose a case because the defendant had a lawyer who manipulated a loophole and caused me to lose my case against them.

Good question, Deikan. For starters, I think every child's DNA should be taken at birth, and put into a system. I also think that at the age of 15 (when they child goes to get the drivers permit) you should have to submit all your fingerprints to be put into the same system.

Research for loopholes before you take your case to court. If there is a chance you could lose, then suck it up and move on.

Why should someone have to sue, anyway? Whatever happened to talking it over and coming to a mutual agreement? Here's the reason: $$$$

If I lost my leg because a company was knowingly selling a flawed piece of machinery you better damn bet I am going to sue their asses for my leg.

I'm not going to "talk it over"...I lost a fucking leg to a bunch of money hungry dicks.

Extreme example I know, but not THAT far fetched at all.

The reason people have to sue is because businesses do not jsut talk it over. The other problem wiht that is you have yourself and whatever you can muster to find loopholes. If your goin against a major business, they have entire law firms full of trained researchers and legal professionls to find them.

In the battle for legal knowlege the business will win 100% of the time.

The average person does not have the time or resources to research hundreds of thousads of cases and read through thousands of pages of law before they would need to file suit. For the average person to hire a lawyer who could compete with the business they would need to have an unexaustable source of $$$.

I gaurantee you, if the CEO of a company walked up next to you and shot you, there is a chance you could take this to court and lose. Shoudl you just suck it up and walk away?

A medical company sells you a drug that they know will cause you extreme pain and have a good chance to cause you death. Your mother takes the medication an dies as a direct result of it. Do you call the company and say, "You know what, your medication killed my mother. CAn you please compensate me?" They respond "No". You respond "Ok sorry for taking up your time". I dont think so. You sue them. Now there is of course a chance they will win. Shoudl you just walk away because you know you could lose? Hell no.

Kizzy wrote:Good question, Deikan. For starters, I think every child's DNA should be taken at birth, and put into a system. I also think that at the age of 15 (when they child goes to get the drivers permit) you should have to submit all your fingerprints to be put into the same system.

Chip implants like they put in pets, but on a much more sophisticated scale, would be cool. You'd be able to see where they are at all times via a Global Positioning Satellite map.

Harrison wrote:If I lost my leg because a company was knowingly selling a flawed piece of machinery you better damn bet I am going to sue their asses for my leg.

It would be your fault for not being careful, wouldn't it?

Mindia wrote:

Kizzy wrote:Good question, Deikan. For starters, I think every child's DNA should be taken at birth, and put into a system. I also think that at the age of 15 (when they child goes to get the drivers permit) you should have to submit all your fingerprints to be put into the same system.

Chip implants like they put in pets, but on a much more sophisticated scale, would be cool. You'd be able to see where they are at all times via a Global Positioning Satellite map.

no.

Harrison wrote:If I lost my leg because a company was knowingly selling a flawed piece of machinery you better damn bet I am going to sue their asses for my leg.

I'm not going to "talk it over"...I lost a fucking leg to a bunch of money hungry dicks.

Extreme example I know, but not THAT far fetched at all.

You left out details in your story. Did you know the machinery was flawed? If you did, then you deserve nothing. Did the company put a warning on the flawed machinary? If they did, then you are at fault once again.

If you answered "no" to both of those questions, then you would have no worries about sueing because (if you read my entire first post, not what you wanted to. Then you would see that common sense would rule in the courts) you would win the suit.

The first thing I would do is ensure that most of you never, ever have an opportunity to modify the justice system.

Trial by judge instead of by jury? Are you insane? The first time you get a judge or collection of judges out to set a precedent, you've thrown any chance of a fair verdict out the window. Trying to pretend that no judge would ever attempt to legislate from the bench is ridiculous. I'd rather put my fate in the hands of a dozen slopebrowed mouthbreathers than an educated person with an agenda to pursue.

Harrison wrote:If I lost my leg because a company was knowingly selling a flawed piece of machinery you better damn bet I am going to sue their asses for my leg.

I'm not going to "talk it over"...I lost a fucking leg to a bunch of money hungry dicks.

Extreme example I know, but not THAT far fetched at all.

Whereas if a company knowingly sold coffee at an unsafe temperature, it's obviously the consumer's fault for spilling it?

Hypocrite.

*deleted*

Actually Canada, and Britain, have a thing called "costs" which can be awarded by the judge as a result of a trivial lawsuit.

It does not fully work to remove stupid lawsuits, but it sure does reduce the number.

Despite this system in place Canada is in the top 5 lawsuit nations due to the close proximity with the USA, #1 by a huge margin.

As to the main topic, legalize the "light" drugs (hash, pot) and tax the hell out of them

I also agree with making the prison inmates have to "work" in some form, both to help defray the costs of prison, and to give them some feeling of use/accomplishment. The single worst thing about the modern prison system is that the it is the same soul destroying "you cannot make me do anything" that already exists amongst the poor community that makes up 90+% of the prison population.

While strongly in favour of the death penalty, you crazies want it too much. There are far too many cases where some poor sucker got nailed for a crime he did not commit, and then got the legal representation from the State that guaranteed he was going to death row. I think that in cases that are 100% certain (admission of guilt, pictures showing the crime, numerous eye witnesses) kill them with no appeals. The other cases are not so easy and death is not a solution.

*deleted*

10sun wrote:

Mindia wrote:

Kizzy wrote:Good question, Deikan. For starters, I think every child's DNA should be taken at birth, and put into a system. I also think that at the age of 15 (when they child goes to get the drivers permit) you should have to submit all your fingerprints to be put into the same system.

Chip implants like they put in pets, but on a much more sophisticated scale, would be cool. You'd be able to see where they are at all times via a Global Positioning Satellite map.

no.

Why on earth not? Invasion of children's privacy?

I agree with Mindia?! Children shouldn't have privacy until the age of 18. Children have way too many rights as it is. I believe thats the reason why children (not all) are so uncontrollable. They just need a good beating once in a while!

Mindia wrote:

10sun wrote:

Mindia wrote:

Kizzy wrote:Good question, Deikan. For starters, I think every child's DNA should be taken at birth, and put into a system. I also think that at the age of 15 (when they child goes to get the drivers permit) you should have to submit all your fingerprints to be put into the same system.

Chip implants like they put in pets, but on a much more sophisticated scale, would be cool. You'd be able to see where they are at all times via a Global Positioning Satellite map.

no.

Why on earth not? Invasion of children's privacy?

Are we going to be removing the chips when the childreen turn 18?

Loser pays is a horrible idea. That guarantees, moreso even than presently, that the rich one wins. No one would ever sue a corporation.

Loser pays becomes viable if you could get maximum court costs down to, say, a couple grand total, no matter how big or drawn out the suit is. And itll be a cold day in hell before that happens.

Agrajag wrote:Not to beat a dead horse, but in my eyes this was a trivial lawsuit. She purchased the coffee. Coffee is served HOT. She received the coffee and proceeded to spill it on herself. Common sense would put her at fault. The MacDonald's employee didn't spill it on her. She did it herself.

This thread is a "what if" thread. In my second post on this subject I stated the above. Using common sense, a judge would look past the loop holes, defense strategies and idiocy to see that MacDonald's did not spill the hot coffee in the woman's lap. She did it herself and therefore, is liable for the damage she incurred upon herself.

This same logic (you might want to look that word up) would be used in ALL trivial suits.

Now, if you also introduced the fact that if you lose a lawsuit and have to pay all court costs, there would be a drastic reduction in trivial lawsuits where common sense has been disregarded.

Some of you aren't grasping the concept of "common sense" here. I can see why in some of your posts.

Ironfang wrote:While strongly in favour of the death penalty, you crazies want it too much. There are far too many cases where some poor sucker got nailed for a crime he did not commit, and then got the legal representation from the State that guaranteed he was going to death row. I think that in cases that are 100% certain (admission of guilt, pictures showing the crime, numerous eye witnesses) kill them with no appeals. The other cases are not so easy and death is not a solution.

The death penalty doesn't work unless it's applied on a widespread, consistent, equitable basis, for all the reasons enumerated in the other death penalty threads. It needs to act as a sufficiently powerful deterrent to save more innocent lives then it takes. Applied infrequently and inconsistently, it's ineffective in this role.

xaoshaen wrote:

Ironfang wrote:While strongly in favour of the death penalty, you crazies want it too much. There are far too many cases where some poor sucker got nailed for a crime he did not commit, and then got the legal representation from the State that guaranteed he was going to death row. I think that in cases that are 100% certain (admission of guilt, pictures showing the crime, numerous eye witnesses) kill them with no appeals. The other cases are not so easy and death is not a solution.

The death penalty doesn't work unless it's applied on a widespread, consistent, equitable basis, for all the reasons enumerated in the other death penalty threads. It needs to act as a sufficiently powerful deterrent to save more innocent lives then it takes. Applied infrequently and inconsistently, it's ineffective in this role.

Do you want to be the person in charge of telling the families of the innocent that their loved one was put to death, and that we know they didn't do it but we need to use the death penalty to make a point. He is a hero, he is saving the lives of other innocent people.

Gidan wrote:Do you want to be the person in charge of telling the families of the innocent that their loved one was put to death, and that we know they didn't do it but we need to use the death penalty to make a point.

I DO!

"Costs" is determined by the judge for lawsuits that are a burden on the system, NOT a cost applied to the winner.

As to "rules" being created and consistent, make them that way. There are hundreds of 1st degree murder convictions in Canada (let alone the more populous and deadly USA) that were done because the cops did not like someone and/or picked the wrong person.

Don't get me wrong, I am strongly pro the death penalty, but there is no way I would apply it across the board.

A great example of who needs it is Paul Bernardo or Clifford Oleson in Canada and Charles Manson in the US. No questions, take him out back, have him dig his own grave and shoot him in the head.

xaoshaen wrote:The death penalty doesn't work unless it's applied on a widespread, consistent, equitable basis, for all the reasons enumerated in the other death penalty threads. It needs to act as a sufficiently powerful deterrent to save more innocent lives then it takes. Applied infrequently and inconsistently, it's ineffective in this role.

That is a simple fact. If life imprison does not deter someone, is the death penalty really going to change much?

The simple fact is it is not justice. It is a barbaric stone age philosophy that inserts revenge into a system that is supposed to be unprejudiced.