Sunday, October 20, 2013
Well, this is the first post in years without the leading green quote. I still haven't solved the problem of how to get to my ".wps" documents. No big deal. Eventually I will.
------------------------------------
There's a food truck in the Albany/Schenectady area named "The Wandering Dago". New York State had no problem approving the business name, but now someone in the government has decided the name is offensive, and the truck has been banned from places under state control, like the Empire State Plaza in Albany and the Saratoga race track.
The truck owners and operators happen to be Italian. They like the name. They not only like it, they're proud of it, and by serving great food, they feel they are saying exactly that. They can call themselves Dagos if they want, right? They've gone to court, claiming their first amendment rights have been abridged by the state.
I've been idly following the story for a while. There's no resolution yet, but it doesn't look good for the wandering Dagos. The judge's name is D'Agostino. Catch the first four letters.
------------------------------------
This brings up something that generally bugs me - the tendency to much wider interpretation of the Constitution than the framers ever intended.
The first amendment was meant to permit citizens to criticize the government without reprisal. Period.
It was not intended to allow anyone to say, write, wear, do, display any insulting, profane, irreverent, impious, disrespectful, sacrilegious, obscene, blasphemous, indecent, foul, vulgar, crude, filthy, dirty, smutty, coarse, rude, offensive, indecorous, just plain nasty thing to anyone else, anywhere, any time. Which is how most people want to interpret it.
Neither is it the function of government to protect people from being insulted or offended.
So I don't think the state has the right to ban the Wandering Dago truck from tax-supported public areas just because some people are offended. I also don't think the owners have a right to the name guaranteed by the first amendment. The first amendment has nothing to do with it.
No, I don't know what the solution is.
The whole issue is annoying.
Now, if this were Europe....
.
Showing posts with label legal system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal system. Show all posts
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
3253 Perp Walk
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
From the Wall Street Journal law blog:
I also think it's disgusting the way suspects are treated here. If the suspect is at all "famous", the police make sure there are reporters and cameras there for the arrest, they handcuff everyone in front of coworkers, family, whomever even if they are fully cooperative and unarmed, and then they are convicted in the media, regardless of the outcome of any investigation.
Why do they feel people have to be publicly embarrassed regardless of guilt? It must be because protestations to the contrary, we really do have a presumption of guilt before trial.
.
"You can't build a reputation on what you are going to do."
-- Henry Ford --
---------------------------------------------------
-- Henry Ford --
---------------------------------------------------
From the Wall Street Journal law blog:
[T]here was also outrage about the photos of Mr. Strauss-Kahn cuffed in custody. While the so-called perp walk is a New York police tradition, allowing the press to get photographs of a suspect, a 2000 law in France tries to reinforce the principle of the presumption of innocence by criminalizing the publication of photos of an identifiable person in handcuffs who has not yet been convicted. [...emphasis mine...]I've written about how I think the French judicial system is much more sensible and fair than that of the US, in that assumption of innocence is ingrained and honored, and the purpose of a trial is to get to the truth, not to see who has the better lawyer.
The former French justice minister whose name is on the law, Elisabeth Guigou, said she found the photos of Mr. Strauss-Kahn in cuffs indicative of “a brutality, a violence, of an incredible cruelty, and I’m happy that we don’t have the same judiciary system.”
I also think it's disgusting the way suspects are treated here. If the suspect is at all "famous", the police make sure there are reporters and cameras there for the arrest, they handcuff everyone in front of coworkers, family, whomever even if they are fully cooperative and unarmed, and then they are convicted in the media, regardless of the outcome of any investigation.
Why do they feel people have to be publicly embarrassed regardless of guilt? It must be because protestations to the contrary, we really do have a presumption of guilt before trial.
.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
2374 Screwed up legal system
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
It's no secret that I think the US legal system is a screwed up mess. It's no secret that prosecutors are more interested in winning than in finding the truth. And it's only coincidentally a personality flaw - it's the way the system is set up. They don't get rewarded for truth, only for wins.
The same with large law firms. Juniors don't make partner by getting to the truth. Only wins count.
It's no secret that innocent people plead guilty or no contest to criminal charges because they earn too much to qualify for a court-appointed attorney, but too little to hire their own. It's cheaper to just pay the fine, or take the 60 days in jail.
It's no secret that there are people who will sue everybody in sight for accidents that they themselves caused, because "it's free money", "it's the insurance company's money, so nobody is hurt". And there are unscrupulous lawyers who will take those cases on contingency because they know that the insurance companies will settle because it's cheaper than going to court, even though they know the plaintiff has no case. No case. But it's cheaper to pay the plaintiff and his lawyer off.
There are people who are serial suers.
There are lawyers who salivate over class action suits. I, personally, get four or more notices a year, every year, that unless I opt out, I am a member of a class action suit. Usually it's either a medical or stock owner thing. Most people just throw those notices away. The few I have followed up on, I discovered that whatever it was that happened, I was not actually affected. But there I am, on their list. In every case, the award is a few gazillion dollars, and each of the plaintiffs (most of whom were not injured in any way) gets a few dollars. The biggest check I have seen from a class action suit was $3.85. The lawyers get the gazillion minus the few thousand they paid the people who allowed themselves to be used to pad the "injured" list. It's no wonder they salivate.
The local TV stations' mid-morning schedule is full of "baby-momma" and judge shows. It's interesting that when the folks are asked "and where did you get the money to...", or "Do you have a job? No? Then what do you live on?", in more than half the instances, the reply is, "I had an award from a lawsuit." It's scary that there are people who think that's how to get free money.
The system encourages it.
I found an interesting website on the topic: http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/, from the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform · 1615 H St N.W. Washington D.C. 20062-2000. They have stories of outrageous lawsuits. There are videos, but you don't have to watch them - you get the same info faster from reading the stories.
Government has been blathering about tort reform for decades. It isn't going to happen if we leave it up to them. The lawyers have the majority vote there, remember?
Frivolous lawsuits must be stopped. Law firms that bring frivolous lawsuits should be penalized. Settlements should be scrutinized and not allowed in frivolous cases. But --- you and I could be sued at the (literal) drop of a hat, and then we'd be forced to hire a lawyer to prove the case frivolous.
Crap.
This is something we could learn from the French legal system. They do it right. Well, righter.
-----------------------
Post Script -
This entry has had a lot of visits, but next to no one clicks on the above link to my post on the French system.
So I decided to copy the pertinent part here:
It's no secret that I think the US legal system is a screwed up mess. It's no secret that prosecutors are more interested in winning than in finding the truth. And it's only coincidentally a personality flaw - it's the way the system is set up. They don't get rewarded for truth, only for wins.
The same with large law firms. Juniors don't make partner by getting to the truth. Only wins count.
It's no secret that innocent people plead guilty or no contest to criminal charges because they earn too much to qualify for a court-appointed attorney, but too little to hire their own. It's cheaper to just pay the fine, or take the 60 days in jail.
It's no secret that there are people who will sue everybody in sight for accidents that they themselves caused, because "it's free money", "it's the insurance company's money, so nobody is hurt". And there are unscrupulous lawyers who will take those cases on contingency because they know that the insurance companies will settle because it's cheaper than going to court, even though they know the plaintiff has no case. No case. But it's cheaper to pay the plaintiff and his lawyer off.
There are people who are serial suers.
There are lawyers who salivate over class action suits. I, personally, get four or more notices a year, every year, that unless I opt out, I am a member of a class action suit. Usually it's either a medical or stock owner thing. Most people just throw those notices away. The few I have followed up on, I discovered that whatever it was that happened, I was not actually affected. But there I am, on their list. In every case, the award is a few gazillion dollars, and each of the plaintiffs (most of whom were not injured in any way) gets a few dollars. The biggest check I have seen from a class action suit was $3.85. The lawyers get the gazillion minus the few thousand they paid the people who allowed themselves to be used to pad the "injured" list. It's no wonder they salivate.
The local TV stations' mid-morning schedule is full of "baby-momma" and judge shows. It's interesting that when the folks are asked "and where did you get the money to...", or "Do you have a job? No? Then what do you live on?", in more than half the instances, the reply is, "I had an award from a lawsuit." It's scary that there are people who think that's how to get free money.
The system encourages it.
I found an interesting website on the topic: http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/, from the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform · 1615 H St N.W. Washington D.C. 20062-2000. They have stories of outrageous lawsuits. There are videos, but you don't have to watch them - you get the same info faster from reading the stories.
Government has been blathering about tort reform for decades. It isn't going to happen if we leave it up to them. The lawyers have the majority vote there, remember?
Frivolous lawsuits must be stopped. Law firms that bring frivolous lawsuits should be penalized. Settlements should be scrutinized and not allowed in frivolous cases. But --- you and I could be sued at the (literal) drop of a hat, and then we'd be forced to hire a lawyer to prove the case frivolous.
Crap.
This is something we could learn from the French legal system. They do it right. Well, righter.
-----------------------
Post Script -
This entry has had a lot of visits, but next to no one clicks on the above link to my post on the French system.
So I decided to copy the pertinent part here:
In France, according to Jay and his father at least, the object of the courts is to find the truth. Cases are presided over by a panel of judges, who direct the research and investigation, and choose, summon, and question the witnesses. They want the whole truth, not someone's filtered and slanted version of it, and they keep probing until they are satisfied they've got it. Contrast this with American courts, where the object often seems to be to prevent the whole truth from coming out, to pit one attorney's skill at obfuscation and blocking against another's, winner take all..
This means that in the US, the outcome of family, civil, and criminal cases is often determined not by the truth and law, but by whose lawyer could dance faster. Which actually translates to who had the most money. Which explains a lot about the demographics of the prisons.
If I were innocent, I'd want a French court. If I were guilty, I'd want an American court and a rich uncle. That doesn't sound nice at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)