Lawyers need to go

[Edwardo Piet]

You must live in some make believe world where the police don't suspect people, or frame people.  Must be nice living in make believe land.

What makes you think I think that?

I am very suspect of the authorities.

There's a conflict there and yet you don't see it LMAO. It's as embarrassing as the free will thread all over again! (where, not coincidentally your magical thinking was in line with a theist's lol).

[Joods]

Kit, you're OK with an IQ of 80 running his own defense? A person with schizophrenia? A guy in a coma? A person who has no clue of the law? A child? A Hammy?

I don't like 90% of the legal system, but they are a necessary evil.

Now, you're just convoluting.

And you're being foolish. So you're basically saying that my 22 year old daughter, with down syndrome, who has the mind of a 7 year old would be perfectly able to hold her own in a court if law if someone made an accusation that she, oh, I don't know, killed someone? How would she be able to properly defend herself, exactly?

Really, who's being convoluted now?

[Edwardo Piet]

You seem to have full faith in the police and judges.

I mean after all you want to get rid of lawyers, thus giving ALL the power to police and judges.  Police can question you however they like.  They can lock you in a room, leave you there, and coerce a confession.  Makes their job really easy.  They'd have a 100% conviction rate.  

You really want to give all this power to judges and police?  I know I don't.

What I place truth in is something opposite of faith.

What I want to give power to is one precisely like a judge who is not biased.

Lawyers are biased.

You just give baseless assertions lol.

---

Kit, you're OK with an IQ of 80 running his own defense? A person with schizophrenia? A guy in a coma? A person who has no clue of the law? A child? A Hammy?

LOL @ that last one.

Yeah I really have about as much familiarity with Law as I do with being a practicing member of the No Fap community.

---

Kit, you're OK with an IQ of 80 running his own defense? A person with schizophrenia? A guy in a coma? A person who has no clue of the law? A child? A Hammy?

I don't like 90% of the legal system, but they are a necessary evil.

Now, you're just convoluting.

And you're just constantly missing the point as always.

This is you in almost every debate:

[Joods]

Police are REQUIRED to say it. They don't say it to 'protect themselves'. How about instead of using 'common sense' you actually learn a goddamn thing or two.

I was just thinking that about you, how you need to learn a goddamn thing or two.

They are called Miranda rights for a reason, kit and a cop can get in a shit ton of trouble if they arrest someone without properly Mirandizing their suspect. And that's the law. I suggest you stop being obtuse and learn something.

[The Valkyrie]

Lawyers are a necessary evil in an unfair and unjust society.

Until humanity grows up, they will be necessary.

[Brian37]

Aren't judges enough for deciding what should be legally done?

I personally think the world would be better without lawyers.

At one time, in the past, that lawyer commercials were not allowed on television.

In my honest opinion, the lawyer commercials need to go the way of cigarette commercials.  

Lawyers need to become obsolete.

No, lawyers are to act on a check on power. If anything public defenders need more funding. Without lawyers the rich could really bully everyone. 

Lawyers ALSO protect you on issues such as wills, power of attorney. Without them even your own family members could drain you. 

Despite what you might want to believe, there are courts with judges in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia and China. You may not like their commercials but I am glad we have them. My mom using them late in life made the transition after her passing far easier than it would have been if she did nothing in planning. 

But especially with crime, they are extremely important if one is falsely accused. To assume a judge will determine the facts by themselves without bias is a mistake. Judges are human beings too and can be subject to corruption too.

There was a case a few years back where a privately run youth jail was paying A judge to give convictions to fill the jail. That judge was taking bribes to fill the jail. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo...95ec3b4aef

Judicial corruption is not unique.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Judges+w...e&ie=UTF-8

Judges need checks on themselves too.

[Crossless2.0]

OP presents the worst idea I've encountered in a long time. Do away with the adversarial system and entrust our criminal and civil legal system to a kind of nationwide "People's Court", presumably with some wise and kindly judge to sort through complex legal cases with the ease of a small claims court judge. Meanwhile, if you are unfortunate enough to appear before the court on a criminal matter or a complex civil case, you'll be representing yourself, so kiss your family goodbye. You are going to be quite busy boning up on everything you'll need to know before you even set foot in the courtroom: procedure; constitutional law; criminal law; civil law; contracts, trusts, deeds, etc. And if old Judge Wapner rules against you, do you know how to file an appeal? Will there be appeals in this scheme, or are we just going with the 'fairness and objectivity' of the first judge who reviews the evidence and leave it at that? And what of those who lack the capacity to half-ass their way through a proceeding? Fuck 'em? And how the hell does this scheme satisfy the most basic requirements of the 5th Amendment? Perhaps we should repeal that, just for good measure.

Yeah, a stunningly bad idea.

[Joods]

I'd still like to know how my 22 year old would actually be able to defend herself in a criminal case, should she be accused of anything.

[Brian37]

OP presents the worst idea I've encountered in a long time. Do away with the adversarial system and entrust our criminal and civil legal system to a kind of nationwide "People's Court", presumably with some wise and kindly judge to sort through complex legal cases with the ease of a small claims court judge. Meanwhile, if you are unfortunate enough to appear before the court on a criminal matter or a complex civil case, you'll be representing yourself, so kiss your family goodbye. You are going to be quite busy boning up on everything you'll need to know before you even set foot in the courtroom: procedure; constitutional law; criminal law; civil law; contracts, trusts, deeds, etc. And if old Judge Wapner rules against you, do you know how to file an appeal? Will there be appeals in this scheme, or are we just going with the 'fairness and objectivity' of the first judge who reviews the evidence and leave it at that? And what of those who lack the capacity to half-ass their way through a proceeding? Fuck 'em? And how the hell does this scheme satisfy the most basic requirements of the 5th Amendment? Perhaps we should repeal that, just for good measure.

Yeah, a stunningly bad idea.

Too much "Judge Judy" "Hot Bench"garbage.

[The Grand Nudger]

Alot of the stuff that goes to court already is decided by a judge with little to no input from lawyers, but that portion of cases aren't generally seen as examples of people being well represented and getting the best possible outcomes.

(ironically, the judge judy shit has a mess of lawyers, you just don't see them onscreen. They're the ones that scout small claims and get them into an arbitration agreement before filming)