That doesn't mean that it's actually happening more often. In fact, the rates could very well be decreasing. We're just getting more reports of things like this.
Also, how many stories are like the "Don't tase me, bro" incident? Until you establish the veracity of every such claim - which is why we have a legal system - you're really not in any reasonable position to comment on trending.
As always, I'll relate it back to food safety. Food, Inc. created unnecessary doubt in people's minds by saying that our food is less safe than it used to be. Yet, as of 2009, the CDC reports a 20% decrease in the incidence of foodborne illness from 2007 - 2009 compared to 1997 - 1999. Why the public perception that our food is less safe? Because you hear more reports of it. We've gotten better at finding and reporting problems, so you hear about them more often.
The same could be true of many stories of improper police conduct. There are sure as hell plenty of valid stories out there, but how many popularized things are telling you the whole story? You hear about impropriety among the police more because technology has made it so that more stories get out, and stories about how The Man is a douchebag have always had more traction than stories about how The Man is doing his job.
The situation is more nuanced than you make it out to be.
Also, anyone who is well qualified is going to make a ton more money in the private sector.
Also, this isn't actually true. Job placement prospects out of law school are not actually that awesome any more. The odds of you making shitfucktons of money as a recent law school grad are pretty low.
How about free legal consultation? Government employees whose sole responsibility it is to answer legal questions and clarify things for the average citizen?
If they are qualified to do that, then they can make far more money as a lawyer.
Also, there's the problem of who's going to pay for malpractice insurance. If a person asks you for legal advice, and you hold yourself out to be a lawyer and give advice that said person relies upon to their detriment, said person can sue you for many monies. That's the unauthorized practice of law.. State bars don't like that sort of thing. Some states even have criminal penalties for such shenanigans.
Some states hold that merely answering a question posed by such a person is holding oneself out to be a lawyer and engaging in unauthorized practice.
Ah this is true. It could very well be just a perception of increased incidence because of increased reporting of incidence. I think then the first step then is to study and determine how often this happens, exactly, and what the extent of the problem is.
I think then the first step then is to study and determine how often this happens, exactly, and what the extent of the problem is.
Exactly. That could reveal all sorts of problems with our legal system that aren't even related to the proposed issue.
Of course, that would take time and money, and the public opinion moves much faster than that. Also, I'm not confident that an objective and independent study will actually change enough minds to matter. I've been in science too long to actually believe that enough people change their minds when presented with, y'know, evidence.
But it's certainly worth a shot. A comprehensive, top-down audit of the legal system in the US, to identify key issues and develop a plan of action to remedy those issues.
As if a single person in a position of power would allow that to happen.
A man can dream, can't he?
EDIT: Again, it's much more likely that we'll move towards educational initiatives that focus on information interpretation rather than just presentation. Just keep talking to each other about critical thinking topics until the noise of critical analysis drowns out the noise of parroted ignorance. Then, people will be able to decipher legal documents and exchange ideas in a constructively critical fashion, and we'll be able to intelligently determine how to apply our laws.
I'd have thought ya'll would have learned by now and given up on trying to come up with ways to fix it.
I will seriously argue that if we actually agree, as rational people, that even incremental change that actually moves us in a better direction is impossible under the current system, that said system must be actively opposed, destroyed, or rebuilt. Knowing we can't move forward is very different from giving up: it spurs those who actually care into real action.
A single, codified compendium of all law in the US will never happen unless we abandon Federalism. To those of you looking for simple explanations of certain areas of non-codified law, they already exist. Look for Restatements. They are non-legally-binding volumes that basically summarize common law that you would otherwise have to read a bajillion cases to understand. Not every state follows them, but they generally describe the majority view.
I, personally, am a huge fan of the idea of subsidized or publicly-provided legal assistance. There is no reason law school should be as expensive as it is, and there is no other reason than the price of school that lawyers need to charge lots of money. Access to legal assistance in this country is disgraceful. Only the very poorest of the poor qualify for legal assistance, but virtually no middle class person can actually afford legal counsel at the current price ranges.
Scott's idea to make every law understandable with a high school education sounds good, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the huge volume of law we have. Even if you can understand it, you have to have the skills to find it first, and then you have to have the skills to make sure that you have the whole story and not just one of three relevant laws. Even trained lawyers have to consult with other lawyers who specialize in different fields when a question arises that is outside of their expertise.
Anyone that is wrongfully arrested has the right to bring a claim/suit against the police department/officers that arrested them. The outcomes are varied, based on the circumstances involved, but recourse for wrongful arrest exists.
Anyone that is wrongfully arrested has the right to bring a claim/suit against the police department/officers that arrested them. The outcomes are varied, based on the circumstances involved, but recourse for wrongful arrest exists.
Yeah, but not for free. If you are lucky, you might get awarded attorney's fees, but there's no guarantee.
Yeah, but not for free. If you are lucky, you might get awarded attorney's fees, but there's no guarantee.
Not to mention it takes a looong time. Also, the attorney's fees are basically double. You first pay for a lawyer to defend you at trial and secondly you pay a lawyer to file suit. Considering a case like the example I provided could have been completely averted with a phone call to the TSA to verify the policy, the possibility of a wrongful arrest suit somewhere down the line is far from sufficient.
Also, the attorney's fees are basically double. You first pay for a lawyer to defend you at trial and secondly you pay a lawyer to file suit. Considering a case like the example I provided could have been completely averted with a phone call to the TSA to verify the policy, the possibility of a wrongful arrest suit somewhere down the line is far from sufficient.
No, Scott - if you are wrongfully arrested, and your lawyer is worth spit, then your attorney should focus on that first and get you off before you even get close to trial. You don't have to retain two separate attorneys. Also, something like 95% of cases plea/settle out of court, so most people don't have to pay for a trial.
Depending on the strength of the claim, the police department's insurance company may make a settlement offer (which may or may not be worthwhile) directly after the claim is filed/50-h Hearing (like a deposition) is taken, which is a possibility for a pre-suit resolution. Many of the claimants and plaintiffs are pro se (represent themselves) or their contracts with their attorneys (usually mill law firms) state that attorney fees are a percentage or flat fee based on recovery of funds only (meaning if you don't get anything, then they don't get anything). While it is true that some continue to suit and a few make it to trial, a lot of times they are resolved after discovery and (if there is a lot of feet dragging) at pre-trial.
No, Scott - if you are wrongfully arrested, and your lawyer is worth spit, then your attorney should focus on that first and get you off before you even get close to trial. You don't have to retain two separate attorneys. Also, something like 95% of cases plea/settle out of court, so most people don't have to pay for a trial.
Well, I guess the guy from that video didn't do that because he went to trial and was acquitted by a jury.
Being acquitted doesn't mean you were wrongfully arrested. It just means the jury wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty. Proving wrongful arrest is very different from giving the jury enough doubt to acquit.
There is no reason law school should be as expensive as it is
Deans have to make money somehow. Won't somebody think of the deans?
But yes, I would love subsidized legal help. I've read a lot of articles about law school grads in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. I'm pretty sure if any government said something like "work for us for 10 years and we'll make that debt go away," people would jump right at that.
Being acquitted doesn't mean you were wrongfully arrested. It just means the jury wasn't convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you were guilty. Proving wrongful arrest is very different from giving the jury enough doubt to acquit.
I am aware of this. However, this guy was arrested for doing things which were not illegal.
I'm pretty sure if any government said something like "work for us for 10 years and we'll make that debt go away," people would jump right at that.
Speaking as a pre-med student, I'd work in a government hospital for a good while if they paid off my med school loans. Considering the cost of a single brain or heart surgery, it'd be worth their while. A balloon angioplasty usually costs about $40k.
I'd work in a government hospital for a good while if they paid off my med school loans. Considering the cost of a single brain or heart surgery, it'd be worth their while. A balloon angioplasty usually costs about $40k.
Comments
Also, how many stories are like the "Don't tase me, bro" incident? Until you establish the veracity of every such claim - which is why we have a legal system - you're really not in any reasonable position to comment on trending.
As always, I'll relate it back to food safety. Food, Inc. created unnecessary doubt in people's minds by saying that our food is less safe than it used to be. Yet, as of 2009, the CDC reports a 20% decrease in the incidence of foodborne illness from 2007 - 2009 compared to 1997 - 1999. Why the public perception that our food is less safe? Because you hear more reports of it. We've gotten better at finding and reporting problems, so you hear about them more often.
The same could be true of many stories of improper police conduct. There are sure as hell plenty of valid stories out there, but how many popularized things are telling you the whole story? You hear about impropriety among the police more because technology has made it so that more stories get out, and stories about how The Man is a douchebag have always had more traction than stories about how The Man is doing his job.
The situation is more nuanced than you make it out to be. Also, this isn't actually true. Job placement prospects out of law school are not actually that awesome any more. The odds of you making shitfucktons of money as a recent law school grad are pretty low.
Some states hold that merely answering a question posed by such a person is holding oneself out to be a lawyer and engaging in unauthorized practice.
Of course, that would take time and money, and the public opinion moves much faster than that. Also, I'm not confident that an objective and independent study will actually change enough minds to matter. I've been in science too long to actually believe that enough people change their minds when presented with, y'know, evidence.
But it's certainly worth a shot. A comprehensive, top-down audit of the legal system in the US, to identify key issues and develop a plan of action to remedy those issues.
EDIT: Again, it's much more likely that we'll move towards educational initiatives that focus on information interpretation rather than just presentation. Just keep talking to each other about critical thinking topics until the noise of critical analysis drowns out the noise of parroted ignorance. Then, people will be able to decipher legal documents and exchange ideas in a constructively critical fashion, and we'll be able to intelligently determine how to apply our laws.
I'm nothing if not a dreamer.
Alternatively, I dream of discovering a natural Hendrick's spring.
See, a dreamer to the very end!
I, personally, am a huge fan of the idea of subsidized or publicly-provided legal assistance. There is no reason law school should be as expensive as it is, and there is no other reason than the price of school that lawyers need to charge lots of money. Access to legal assistance in this country is disgraceful. Only the very poorest of the poor qualify for legal assistance, but virtually no middle class person can actually afford legal counsel at the current price ranges.
Scott's idea to make every law understandable with a high school education sounds good, but it still doesn't solve the problem of the huge volume of law we have. Even if you can understand it, you have to have the skills to find it first, and then you have to have the skills to make sure that you have the whole story and not just one of three relevant laws. Even trained lawyers have to consult with other lawyers who specialize in different fields when a question arises that is outside of their expertise.
But yes, I would love subsidized legal help. I've read a lot of articles about law school grads in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. I'm pretty sure if any government said something like "work for us for 10 years and we'll make that debt go away," people would jump right at that.