Transparency is a fundamental principle of justice.
Correction: Transparency is a fundamental principle in our government's form of justice.
My point being that justice can be achieved with some secrecy while still being peaceful and civilized..... possibly more so. We just happen to be stuck forced to comply with the government's delivery of justice.
I point this out because I really believe the government should back away from monopolizing the service of justice and let us get these services through choice in the market.
Government = us. This can only be true in a transparent democracy. Justice cannot be applied asymetrically; it is applied equally to all or it is not justice. This equality is an ideal, something we work towards, not something we have, because government = us, and we, being human for the most part, are flawed.
Private solutions are available, such as mediation and arbitration, but this doesn't lay under the umbrella of public justice system, it is an alternative for low conflict situations between reasonable parties.
I respect that you are thinking outside the box, but don't let rebellion against the box shape your thinking, otherwise you are just as thoughtful as a mannikin.
Judicial decisions in both criminal and civil law NEED to pass public scrutiny or our justice system descends into the abyss.
How could anyone appeal a case if the people making the decisions are not held publicly accountable?
How can the law be applied fairly everywhere if there is not a public database of judicial rulings?
How can the everyday man know what is right and wrong under the law without access to legal decisions?
How can the legal precedent (another fundamental aspect of our justice system) operate effectively without wide dissimination of legal rulings.
Dude, if you feel like being argumentative today, fill your pockets. I know I can be disagreeable with the best of us. But bring a reasonable argument.
Judicial decisions in both criminal and civil law NEED to pass public scrutiny or our justice system descends into the abyss.
Not if you are given a choice of what legal code you want to follow and what consequences you agree to accept in the event that you violate those rules.
Dude, if you feel like being argumentative today, fill your pockets. I know I can be disagreeable with the best of us. But bring a reasonable argument.
Next time you drive your car, think of the car insurance you chose for yourself. Then, admit that not everybody was forced to choose the same package. After you have digested that, convince yourself that it is impossible to apply the same business model to any other service that involves the resolution of disputes. I am going to give you a bit of a hint: you already have convinced yourself that it is impossible.
Not if you are given a choice of what legal code you want to follow and what consequences you agree to accept in the event that you violate those rules.
Administration of justice isn't free. I don't think that the public trough can afford to pay for 51 flavours.
Next time you drive your car, think of the car insurance you chose for yourself. Then, admit that not everybody was forced to choose the same package. After you have digested that, convince yourself that it is impossible to apply the same business model to any other service that involves the resolution of disputes. I am going to give you a bit of a hint: you already have convinced yourself that it is impossible.
Paying for insurance has nothing whatsoever to do with the dispensation of justice.
Oh, I can cut taxes but running for office is not the only way to get there.
One way is to convince people that the government does not need to monopolize the services of marital dispute resolution. Then, I convince people that they have every right to opt out of the government's service. The less people who use the government's service, the less it needs to be funded.
I am no genius. I just happen to be clever enough to admit that justice is just a service and like any other service, every customer has different preferences.
I am also clever enough to recognize that dispute resolution does not have to be monopolized by the government.
Comment