Re: Shoplifting, concealment, liability presumption

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote:
> On 3/10/2010 12:01 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Results should depend only on facts, not presentation.

> Results also depend on written law and case law.  Knowing this is the
> job of lawyers.

I take this to be self evident, and not in contradiction with what I have
written.

> The rules of procedure are not hurdles meant to impede justice.

That's debatable.  But even if they're not meant to, they do in fact
impede justice.  Justice would happen if the cost (both time and money)
were proportionate to the value of the dispute.  "Justice" which imperils
ones life savings isn't justice.  The farce that is SCO vs. Novell isn't
justice.

> They are there to make sure that both sides have a chance to properly
> present their point of view.

In theory, yes.  

> There is no more reason to bemoan the requirement of expertise in law
> than in any other field of endeavor.

I totally agree.

>> An ordinary citizen should be able to depend on the expertise of the
>> court officers.

> But lawyers do more than state claims. They also do research and fact
> discovery so that their claims have a basis. Your naive notion of how
> legal procedure should work cannot possibly work -

That's a very strong statement indeed, which calls for some
justification.  Legal procedure doesn't work well at the moment.  It's so
badly broken that people involved in it shut their minds off to the
brokenness so as to be able to function.

> - anyone sued in such a manner would anyway hire a professional to lead
> his defense, who would do all the law and fact finding that lawyers now
> do. A wise complainant would do the same.

In the current setup, yes.  In the system I envisage, such wouldn't
normally be necessary, except in complicated cases.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).