Please debate these legal questions 3

Here’s something to chew on while the boards are down:

  1. Will we ever see a truly legal definition of marriage?

A legal contract, not unlike a pre-nup, wherein two adults form a lifelong partnership w/o the need for religious intervention)

  1. If justice is blind, would this work:

Take a lawsuit (could be anything) and present it to 12 people who are locked into separate rooms and cannot see each other or anyone involved in the case. For example: the OJ case would read as “person is accused of killing two other persons”. References to gender, race, and so forth would be eliminated. All testimony would appear on computer screens so that you couldn’t hear the persons speak. Jurors would communicate with each other the same way.

  1. Could this law work:

You will not be able to sue or be compensated for losses suffered while in the commission of crime (assuming, of course, you are found guilty). Example: I break into your house to steal something and your dog rips out large chunks of my body or I try to mug you and you beat the crap out of me. Either way, I would not be allowed to sue you for the assault since what I was doing was illegal in the first place.

  1. There already is a legal definition of marriage. It varies slightly from state to state, of course, but it does exist. Whether you agree with it or not and whether it can or should be changed are, naturally different questions.

  2. Very, very bad ideas. A crucial role of the jury is to assess the witnesses’ credibility, in large part through their demeanor. Or maybe you really do believe that I’m a dead ringer for Harrison Ford and I live in a 40-room mansion overlooking the Pacific Ocean?

  3. Why pass a law for to eliminate a type of lawsuit that is virtually never filed, and even then is successful approximately .001% of the time?

  1. People can get married by a justice of the peace without the need for a religious ceremony.

  2. Jurors should be able to see the accused and the witnesses. Typically, they can size a person up by observable body language that doesn’t necessarily get conveyed in a transcript. Such body language may tell a juror something about the credibility of a witness (whether the witness appears confident in their responses or is more shaky). I realize that a person’s body language can sometimes be deceiving depending on how confortable the sepaker is before groups or how good a liar somebody is. It’s not an exact science, but most often, I would think, the average person’s demeanor can be a significant indicator of credibility. However, this does give rise to the risk of allowing prejudices (race, sex, etc.) to enter into the equation. I don’t know how the system would benefit from jurors being physically blind to each other.

  3. Generally, people may use reasonable force in defense of person or property. The original trespasser/wrongdoer should have the ability to sue the landowner/other to determine whether excessive force was used. I have no idea how many such trespassers/wrogdoers are successful in these kinds of suits, but I imagine the sympathy factor is pretty damn low.

Yeah… what Minty said…

Nit-pick. You can sue for anything; the question is whether you have a cause of action.

Example: many is the time I have caught minty green looking at my dog with lust in his eye. I find this is causing me emotional distress. I can file a complaint and serve process on minty. minty can easily defeat my lawsuit (and probably get me sanctioned), but the courtroom doors are always open to me.

Anywhoo.

Responding to question #2, one thing to add to minty’s and Bearflag’s excellent responses:
The identity of the accused and victims must be known to the jurors, if they are to determine whether the accused had a motive to commit the crime. So, you can’t keep the identities (and thus gender, race, etc.) secret.

Sua

On the other hand, I do now have a cause of action against Sua for libel.

Besides, that bitch is hot. :wink:

Just a quick addition to my OP:

  1. How about homosexuals? Can they just go down to city hall and get hitched?

  2. Remember how people went nuts over the OJ verdict? What if the jurors didn’t know it was OJ? What if he were just a “regular” guy? What if a juror is unable to supress his/her prejudices?

  3. These types of cases DO pop up now and again, but they shouldn’t be allowed to pop up at all. If I catch you breaking into my house and I feel threatened and shoot you 7-8 times (assume I kill you with the first shot, but freak out and can’t stop shooting), there’s going to be some slime bag lawyer who’ll want to come after me for the burglar’s family. (NOTE: not all lawyers are slime bags)

Yes. Just a matter of time before the religious and legal definitions of marriage are separated. I wouldn’t place bets on the name surviving though – there’s too much baggage that goes with the term “marriage”. More likely, governments will introduce an equivalent non-gender-specific “civil partnerships” which serve as shorthand for a group of legal contracts (rights of survivorship, etc.). Then, the non-religious “marriage” certificate becomes kind of moot and all but the faithful can just sign up for CPs

In the end, there’s no reason to assume this must be limited by gender, number or intent. Why prevent an elderly unmarried brother and sister from joining legally – or two couples who would like to raise all their children together, etc. (Read Robert Heinlein for all sorts of examples)

Body language and empathy are too important. As I see it, the whole point of a jury is to temper “blind justice” with humanity.

I’d rather see you record trials and send the tapes to 12 trained impartial judges for a verdict, than see the above plan (which separates jurors from the consequences of their decision) implemented. Do you really want your trial to be conducted like a CNN poll?

Nope. Just about everybody breaks the law at some point, and it’s not really acceptable for Moe to splatter little Bobby for trespassing to recover a soccer ball, or for me to break somebody’s leg because I think they’ve stolen a lipstick from the drugstore.

This would lead to rampant vigilantism which might reduce crime, but would almost certainly certainly reduce quality of life even more. Who wants to live in fear of wretched consequences for minor infractions?

Of course, this law could be a good idea if written to only apply when:

a) damages are a rational (foreseeable?) result of the crime (e.g. drowning while trespassing in a swimming pool, having just about any non-weapons related mishap in a broken-into house, triggering a clearly labeled booby trap)

-or-

b) human-inflicted damages are “reasonable” consequences for the crime in question (e.g. beating up a mugger, shooting a violent attacker, etc. but NOT shooting a minor shop-lifter or beating up an illegal alien)
The above SHOULD NOT APPLY to juvenile criminals, especially as regards their forseeable trespass on improperly secured and attractive but lethal property (unmarked lawn treated with deadly chemicals, unfenced inground swimming pool, razor blades in apples on an apple tree, etc.) Property owners in densely populated areas have a basic responsibility to either secure their property or render it reasonably safe for others.

  1. Homosexuals cannot typically go out to city hall and get hitched because state law defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, and variations on this are not recognized as a “marriage”. Yes, the laws are biassed against homosexuals due to prevailing social norms which are, in large part, shaped by the predominant religious values of the people. So, although you can have a “truly legal” marriage [without the need for direct religious involvement], the people getting hitched cannot escape the influence of religion on the law. Is the OP designed to ask whether the legal definition of a “truly legal marriage” will ever change to remove all religious bias? This is totally different than the question of whether marriages conducted under the current law are “truly legal” or “in conformity with the current law and free from direct involvement of a religious repesentative or organization”. Perhaps the scope of the OP should be clarified.

  2. I didn’t follow the OJ trial ::ducks for cover::, but, from what I understand, they attempted to find jurors who had never heard of OJ and, thus, would not be swayed by his celebrity status. Further, there is a process of weeding out potential jurors with racial and other such prejudices where the attorneys try to figure out (by questioning potential jurors) which potential jurors have negative prejudices (and, conversely, which may have prejudices favoring the client). The attorneys will have the most extrememly prejudiced potential jurors removed from jury duty on a given case. Hopefully, people who are overly swayed or bound by their prejudices will be removed [How they find 12 jurors who are not overly swayed by prejudices in Alabama, I do not know (It’s a JOKE, people)]. However, being human, it seems impossible for a juror to be perfectly able to suppress all prejudices.

  3. People should have a right to access the courts to ensure justice as best the system can provide it. Just because soemone comes into your home does [should] not necessarily give you a right freak out, shoot them in the back, gouge their eyes out with razor blades, and run their genitals over a table saw after being sufficiently subdued. This is considered EXCESSIVE FORCE, a la Rodney King, and the perpetrator can and should have a cause of action against the homeowner for stepping beyond reasonable and justifiable bounds of self defense. Further, it is not the LAWYER who has the cause of action against the homeowner, it the the alleged victim of the harm [the CLIENT]. The ALLEGED VICTIM will come after you, not the so-called “slime bag lawyer”. The alleged victim has a right to seek legal representation if the alleged victim so chooses. The lawyer, in turn, has a legal duty to give the client the best representation possible. The lawyer is just DOING HIS JOB in zealously advocating for the alleged victim as he/she was hired to and has a legal obligation to do. [hijack] Also, as an aside, lawyers don’t “get people off the hook” because lawyers are not the ultimate finders of fact. That job belongs to THE COURT. I digress. [/hijack] Thank you for acknowledging that not all lawyers are slime bags. I am certain that not all [insert your job here] are not slime bags either.

WHEW!

::deep breath… count to ten::

I’ll be ok in a sec.

Pardon the double negative.

Truth is a defense, no?

Well, lots of good answers have been covered. So I’m not going to rehash them all just to post mine.

But I did spend a bit of time on #2 because, at first, I
thought it was a good idea. Why should we try to sway the juries with all these extraneous things anyway? Besides, the appeals courts don’t bring in the witnesses to reconduct the trial. They don’t get maps and charts and all the glitter of the trial court. They deal with what’s on pieces of paper to make their decision, so why can’t the juries do the same?

The reason why, I figured out, is that Appeals courts deal with questions of law whereas trial courts deal with questions of fact. That’s a big difference. When you’re trying to determine the truth, you need all the information you can possibly get to make an informed decision. Taking away the jury’s right to see the people in the courtroom takes away from their ability to determine the truth.

And minty, libel means to have a statement that damages someone’s reputation in a permanent medium. But your reputation couldn’t be any more damaged than it is already so I think sua’s in the clear. :wink:

  1. Yes, I wanted to somehow get away from the religious influence placed on marriage. Unfortunately, I feel that this is gonna be waaaaaayyyyyyyy off in the future, if ever.

  2. I’d like to see this put into action as an experiment: take a settled, but controversial case (not OJ, BTW) and present in the form I suggested in the OP just to see want the results would be.

  3. I recall a story, possibly a UL since it’s been awhile, about a teenager, who trespassed onto school property (school was out for the summer and closed) with the intent of stealing sports equipment from the gym. He climbed onto the roof and fell through a faulty skylight and went crashing 40 feet to the floor, breaking both legs. He successfully sued the school blaming the faulty skylight for his injuries. The fact that he was trespassing on gov’t property with intent to steal was never addressed.
    This is also a branching out of a business’ need to protect itself against frivolus lawsuits. For example: you’re in a grocery store and one aisle is closed because someone spilled something and the crew is cleaning the floor. You decide that you just have to have that jar of pickled asparagus and push the “Do Not Enter” sign aside. You slip and bust your butt and possibly break a bone or two. You go to court and a sympathetic jury, wanting to stick it to the big guys, awards you a ton of money even though you did bring it on yourself. Technically, you didn’t break a law, but you did something you shouldn’t have and now want someone else to pay for it.

Mr. Blue Sky: Basing law on urban legends is a bad idea. Otherwise, we’d have Customs inspecting rolled-up carpets for cobras and installing baby-guards in microwave ovens. Please kindly either produce a cite whose rationality we may discuss or concede that your concern about injured criminals winning damages is bogus.

If the jury finds those are the facts, you lose. Period, end of story, and hefty chick in a Viking suit screeching her lungs out. Again, if you have a cite to the contrary, I’d love to see it.

Bearflag70: (What, there were already 69 other Bearflags? ;)) Yeah, truth is a defense in a private-figure defamation suit. But this rule is trumped by the long-standing legal truism that two jokes are better than one. :slight_smile:

Enderw24: Jury question. :stuck_out_tongue:

  1. This is similar to how Thomas Jefferson felt about slavery in his day. He believed slavery would fall eventually, but the country just wasn’t ready for abolition in 1789. Perhaps, in time, things will change similarly with respect to marriage laws.

  2. Body language sometimes speaks volumes that words on paper can’t convey. It would be an interesting experiment to see a jury give full weight to a witness based only on the witness’ words where if they saw the actual examination of the witness, they could totally discredit the witness based upon the fact that he/she makes no eye contact and whimpers and shudders with each burning question in the heat of cross-examination.

  3. Generally , the landowner has a legal duty to secure the property against “attractive nuisances”… shiny objects and other such things that attract minors to trespass. Minors may not appreciate all the risks, so the burden is on the landowner to properly secure the property. In the other case, typically the owner of business establishment has a duty to make the store safe for customers, not just alert them to potential harm. If the suit is truly frivolous, then it will be dismissed either (1) immediately after the plaintiff’s complaint is filed if the complaint fails to state a cause of action for which relief can be granted; or (2) after more facts are gathered, the suit can be terminated by “summary judgment” if there is no dispute as to any material fact and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Either of these procedures can short-circuit the trial process and avoid a costly trial. However, the law should not deter people from bringing legitimate claims to court or totally prohibiit certain people from bringing lawsuits. The rule you propose would do just that by denying legitimate claimants their rightful day in court. One debateable proposal to discourage frivolous lawsuits is to make the “loser” pay the attorneys fees of the “winner”. This is the European model. The American model says that each side must bear their own attorneys fees regardless of the result [with some exceptions]. Americans feel that the European model is too harsh in that it would totally discourage someone with a legitimate, yet factually questionable, claim from exercising their right to access the courts, and we don’t want to discourage filing of legitimate suits.

With over 1300 posts, perhaps you are a public figure around here and you have no claim. This one could go all the way to the Supreme Court! 8^)

Hmmm, that brings up an interesting question of Internet law. Since ain’t none of you know me IRL, which means nobody really knows who has been defamed, does I have a cause of action for defamation of my cyber-self?

I smell a law review article? :slight_smile:

Uh, “do I have a cause of action.” All other colloquialisms sic.

I smell a new thread.

Hey minty wasn’t there a case where a burglar breaking into a cabin was caught in a booby trap and sucessfully sued - the reasoing was something to the effect that the homeowner couldn’t be certain who would get caught in the trap, it could have been a fire fighter etc. and not necessarily a criminal. (just to muddy up the water a bit, however, of course, in that case the home owner wasn’t on the site at the time of the crime)