Interesting how you came away from my earlier response clinging to my note regarding my lack of research regarding jury awards and from that can argue that I am “out of my depth” on everything else as well. I’m not really surprised though. So, I will address this point again.

As stated before, the PERCEPTION of a bloated system is equally important in its effectiveness for the average citizen. Whether or not jury awards are reduced at the appellate level does little to change the fact that headlines screaming about multi-million dollar awards create a viewpoint that our legal system is just another way to get rich quick. Does this mean that our media needs to do a better, more responsible job of reporting the realities? Of course, but that is for another essay.

As for some of my other points discussed…

After carefully checking into the court structure of several different states, I found (not too surprisingly) that Superior, District, and County courts ALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR BOTH CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASES, and do so. That does not sound like a separation of systems as I talked about. Rather, this is the combined system which I implied creates a backlog for civil cases to be resolved. In fact, the U.S. Dept. of Justice studies of the 75 largest county state courts notes that the average time from filing a claim to jury verdicts is 2.5 years. But I guess I was out of my depth when I made the assertion that the length of time it takes to resolve civil cases is too long.

As for the guidelines regarding jury awards for damages, perhaps you could refer to a book called “Punitive Damages: How Juries Decide” by 2002 Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman which took grat pains to study how our system is flawed when it comes to asking juries to bestow monetary justice. This book posits, among other things, the notion that judges should be responsible for deciding the awards rather than juries, based upon their greater experience in such matters. He likens our current system to that of allowing an 8 year old to get a drivers license and then punishing him when he wrecks the car.

Rather than defend a flawed system that clearly needs some revamping, you could take a step back and look at the problems, both actual and perceptual that abound, and come up with some suggestions of your own instead of attacking others who are just looking to insert some common sense.

Thanks for stopping by.

The courts are NOT combined. At least not in our neck of the woods. Perhaps you can find a backwater town with a constable/judge/justice of the peace and a one-room court system to deal with spitting in public and “feuds”. But I doubt it.

As for your assertion that you’re sure you can find cases that back up your claims — I say go ahead! Lets discuss a specific case where the jury award was unacceptable to you. I venture that the result of looking closely will be to discover that the “unfairness” was corrected on an appellate level OR that you misapprehend the nature of the entire proceeding. Either way, dealing in facts tends to insure that we are not just making up arguments to support our point of view.

I am not biased in favor of a bloated court system. I am biased in favor of reasonable examination of ACTUAL fact. To posit a false premise and then argue against it serves no useful purpose. Analysis based on falsity is a failure of epistemology.

Irate~
Thanks for helping to clarify the point I was trying to make regarding the superiority complex associated with those fortunate enough to enjoy the resources to string the little man along. For while they toil at making themselves self-important at the expense of ordinary citizens, the rest of us endeavor to get a leg up in the world, not through trouncing those among us, but by seeking to better ourselves and by standing on our own two feet.

M+ ~
Never feel out of your league. A lack of understanding is often created by the ability of others to make complex that which should not and does not need to be. Rather, insist on making those who would muddy the waters scrape the scum from the surface so as to expose their biases and try to defend undefensible positions. Then throw some common sense their way and watch them try to squirm away. This is the surest way to know that you must be on to something.

Ah, but this is one of the benefits you receive for being wealthy. Take that away, and what incentive has man to better himself? A life of leisure? Not enough, my friend; man works only so that he may one day lord it over his inferiors, or so the plunderbunds would have us believe.

From your e-mail address, I have to conclude that your are either an attorney, a student studying to be an attorney, or otherwise intimately involved with the current legal system, so I can understand better your defense of the system. That helps to understand your point of view.

I will readily admit that my perception of the legal system is based more on my limited experience and the experiences of others with whom I have talked, and with what I have read and seen in various media circles. But as with most things, perception is an important aspect in being able to asses a situation, and often the only way for outsiders to offer suggestions for reform. Those caveats aside, I will reply to your comments.

When I imply that the systems are intertwined, causing a backlog in scheduling, it is because we seem to have both types of legal concerns (criminal and civil) being tried in the same court buildings, with the same court staffs. I readily agree that criminal defendants deserve to have their right to a speedy trial, but so too do non-criminal cases. Civil cases DO span years before resolutions, and I think that it is inexcusable. Is that because they don’t have a separate court apparatus to work within? Or do we, as society, just deem them to be less important in the broader picture? The fact that civil trials take so long IS sufficient reason to vocalize concerns with procedure, and DOES lead to a perception of deficiency.

Secondly, regarding the costs associated with creating and running a completely separate civil system: these could be accomodated by the cost savings I allude to in several of my earlier posts, as well as though the posts that are yet to come. A streamlined legal system will save money in many areas, such as the citizen run “small claims” system that I propose in this essay, and those moneys can be used to facilitate more efficient systems that I feel would make the system better.

As for simplifying the rules of the system being “ridiculous,” I would have to disagree with your assessment that complex rules are needed in order to reduce litigation. In reality, the more complex rules only serve to ensure that more lawyers are necessary to enable anything to pass through the system at all. Since when did making things more complex make things more fair? Usually, the more complex things become, the more loopholes can be found and exploited, necessitating even more rules and regulations. It becomes a self-perpetuating cycle. Your analogy to a laypersons knowledge of airplane mechanics is not very effective simply because knowledge of airplanes is not needed to establish your rights and assert yourself without having to spend an arm and a leg. When citizens are unable to understand the legal options and issues of their complaints without the benefit of expensive legal counsel, they wind up at the mercy of unscrupulous attorneys and uncaring courts, that seemingly care more about protecting their “turf” and collecting their fees than they do about ensuring justice is available to all.

As for your assertion regarding the rules established in awarding damages, you may well be correct. I can admit when I am standing on a limb to make a point. Perhaps you could explain then how ones own carelessness or ineptitude can entitle you to getting someone else’s money? I know that the media usually reports on only the exorbitant jury awards, but what about all of the smaller awards amounting to tens of thousands of dollars for what is commonly referred to as “mental pain and suffering” when the only physical damage an individual received takes the form of hurt feelings, or insecurity? For every actual case of physical injury, there seem to be dozens related to mental damages. The victimization of society has all but put an end to personal responsibility, self-reliance, and common sense.

I may not take the time to research every minute point before I comment on it, but I am pretty sure if I did I could find plenty of cases to back up what I am implying.

I respect your opinions, even if they do come from a somewhat biased standpoint, but if society is just to abandon good judgement in an effort to protect unnecessary regulations and overbloated professions, then we might as well throw in the towel right now, cover our heads up, and wait for everything to fall apart.

First of all, the criminal courts and civil courts are separate. There are not lines of criminal defendants interspersed with civil plaintiffs who are then required to step aside so the speedy trial guarantee of the constitution is met. Speaking of the constitution, it is the source of the rules we apply to criminal trials. It guarantees certain things, which do seem preferential because they are. We prefer to allow the criminal defendant rights that we do not allow the civil plaintiff or defendant because the criminal is in jeopardy of his life and freedom. The mere fact that things go along more quickly for the criminal defendant is not a sufficient reason to call the civil system defective.

Furthermore, how do you suggest we pay for all these new courts that you propose? The buildings, employees, etc. are not free. The main reason that calendars are backlogged is a lack of money to administrate any faster than we do. Double the number of superior court judges and bingo! Things will speed right up. But someone has to pay for that.

Your suggestion that we “simplify” our laws is simply ridiculous. The result of simplification would be MORE litigation, not less. The complexity of the rules serves the very important purpose of narrowing what the civil plaintiff can and can not do. It protects the integrity of the system. To mitigate those benefits for the questionable purpose of “Lay persons ease of understanding” is just as silly as changing the way we build airplanes cause most people don’t “get it”. Consider small claims court for those that want to vindicate themselves with out the assistance of an attorney. Or, better yet, educate yourself and then forgo that attorney. Everyone has the absolute right to represent his or her own interests with out assistance of counsel.

And lastly, sufficient proof and exacting calculations of damage awards is already required. The various types of damages recoverable in civil actions are very well defined and the rules for their calculation are rational and clear. Any result that does not appear to be rational is either not properly understood (most likely) OR is a rare anomaly.

Take the time to understand thep resent system before you deride it.