k wrote: In every field of human endeavor, we hire experts to handle things we do not have sufficient time, inclination or intelligence to learn how to handle on our own.
YES, but should we? Is it always necessary to professionalize, to make a language that the layman can't understand? Sometimes, I think law is unnecessarily complex in order to avoid violence and, perhaps, revolution. In reality, the law is often breathtakingly arbitrary. The same case with narrow differences comes up and recieves different treatment, over and over and over again. How are the differences explained? Judicial prejudice, jury make-up, but mostly the fact that there is a theory for every argument. In th end, that may be the best system anyways (the best argument wins) but all the same, its hard to call it fair or grounded in scientific principles. (Not that you said that.) SO- not only is the law a very different system from how it presents itself, but it seems to me to be deliberate in adding complexities to grievances that might be better served through social change and direct action. For instance, suing a grocery chain for refusing to open in poor neighborhoods would be a passive solution. Organizing community gardens would be active, and probably solve the problem more quickly. 1.5 million women suing Wal-Mart for sex- discriminination yields small individual settlements or years of litigation. 1.5 million women going on strike? Maybe immediate results. (Sometimes these courses of action could be combine, ect.) So I guess what bothers me is that lawyers say to people: this is a legal problem that is too complicated for you to understand, let alone solve. People on all sides of the system back this contention up. Sometimes, though, this convulates issues and takes it out of the hands of those people who could be most instrumental is solving them. And I again, I think thats bullshit. But I suppose its kind of like the weather: everybody talks about it but nobody every does anything. RE: The People's Law Student: Why am I here? |