If you want to see something that will really irritate the hell out of you, take a look at this story from the Indy Star. Sometimes the wheels of justice do not think of every possibility until some blood-sucking attorney takes up a case like this, just to pad his own pocket along the way.
2 comments:
As you say, the fact is that people can’t think of every possibility when legislation is drafted, introduced, and passed into law. The crux of our system of common law is that we learn from the advent of earlier legal cases, applying logic that will make the judicial system consistent, and therefore fair and impartial, across the board. Civil Law, however, is a bit different. It is often called Roman Law (Corpus Juris Civilis), following the Justinian statutes of that period — which also happened to be the basis for Napoleonic Law that is still practiced in one State here in America. These legal events are certainly outrageous. One might argue that the killer’s actions indirectly led to the suicide of his daughter, and that he should not therefore be entitled to any benefit from her death. The other side would argue that the killer’s actions were SO indirect as to have no effect whatever on what happened.
But that’s why you have juries. No court can be held to account when the people decide. It is one of the greatest systems of non-attribution ever devised. It is almost as thorough as the provision that no personal accountability by any high official of government can be applied because idiocy is protected by the Constitution.
That story definitely irritated me.
But that’s why you have juries.
I'll bet his punk waives his right to a jury and has the judge decide his case.
Sometimes I really am ashamed to be a lawyer. I've been trying to talk my little brother out of the profession.
Post a Comment