A lawyerless judicial system might be more modern way for justice

@vandana7 (63805)
India
January 19, 2013 9:12am CST
Yeah..so we make all those senior lawyers as judges...and we assign them various places in the city and there is a telecast of proceedings. The judges argue amongst themselves about right and wrong, and fairness...in each instance... And precedents dont hold as much water...come on if precedents were the only thing to look for, what do we need those judges and their brains for. Each situation is different and justice must be based on merits. Chances of false witnesses comes down, chances of manipulation of law comes down, justice will be done faster ...because the number of such courts would be a whole lot more ...in India...and therefore, disputes would be resolved faster and in more just and humane way. The need to provide evidence rests with the plaintiff and the police and forensic department. No prolongation of cases. Only one case at a time. This would force the plaintiff and the defendents also to prepare all their documents in time and present them before the court. In case the defendants fail to appear before the court on or before the specified date the case may be decided ex parte ... No buying lawyers, no buying judges...we dont really know what are the evidences and arguments do we, because it is the judges who are going to argue, and we dont know who would be the sitting judges until the last hour, right? So no bribery works there.. Just some vague thoughts that periodically crop up in my silly mind...
3 people like this
8 responses
• Philippines
19 Jan 13
I am wondering what kind of justice is served in your country based on your post.
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
19 Jan 13
For every good judge there are 1000 bad precedents, and 2000 bad lawyers who can manipulate the case and bring in false witnesses leaving judges helpless.
• Philippines
20 Jan 13
I can understand about lawyers as almost anyone hates them when it comes to their fees, strategies and tactics. but judges? aren't they supposed to be neutral and just employed to facilitate and hear the case. Can cite a specific example?
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
20 Jan 13
That is the point...judges study law and are at times advocates themselves. This means ...they cant go against their previous stand. We need a bench of judges..or juries if you prefer...from all walks of life, lawyers included. Out there in open we can discuss the issues...and people who have been through something similar can share their experience discuss pros and cons...and based on that eventually the voting should be done. I think the juries panel should be of 50 members. Its not essential that the same jury presides the following day because the matter is recorded, and if he or she had any comments to make even that is recorded. Effectively, it would be judges arguing amongst themselves about what would be right in the given situation. We have commissions as of now..the only thing is I am asking for larger number of people participating in this, and from different walks of life, different strata of society and everybody gets their say...and while it may seem to take long, because of so many judges, I think consensus is possible if it is just and equitable without exactly succumbing to the pressures of customs, and religion. I am afraid I dont have any specific example. However, if there are more number of judges, or jury members, it would be difficult for the defendant to buy them out as is possible at times in our country.
@bellis716 (4806)
• United States
20 Jan 13
Right or wrong, a judicial decision is most often based on precedents in the US. This is how judge So-and-so decided a case like this February 14, 1951.
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
20 Jan 13
So do you think one rule applies to all cases? I mean if a girl is gangraped by 4 persons, and gangraped by 40 persons, is it not different? That is why...I think judges should have discretion to increase penalties or include additional penalties..whatever they think appropriate and that may be prayed by the victim or plaintiff.
@bellis716 (4806)
• United States
21 Jan 13
I didn't say that all cases are alike, but precedents are usually considered. If the plaintiff waives a jury trial, the judge, then, decides guilt or innocence and sets the punishment, within the laws of the state where the crime occurred.
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
21 Jan 13
That is exactly what I want to say..."within the laws of the state". The state does not consider difference between gangrape by 4 or 40. As far as the state is concerned it is a rape by more than one person at the same time. Right? Imagine a young girl being picked from the road for no fault of hers, just that she appealed to a few men from behind because of her naturally endowed structure, and then being kept captive by forty men for several days, she lost count of, daily being raped by several of them, and finally thrown back on the road, in a state that she could barely walk. The state would not even consider it as a gang rape, because definition under law is lays down specific conditions. The girl is still under medication for physiological and psychological trauma. Her parents were not the enemies of any of those 40 persons. Nor were her parents witnesses in any of the cases that were registered against any of those persons. Usually, that is the technique adopted to intimidate the witnesses. So shouldnt the judge have the liberty to cross the boundaries of law in such cases, and penalize the culprits to an extent that such things dont happen ever?
@bhanusb (5709)
• India
29 Jan 13
If judges take bribe then there is no way of proper judgement. The whole judicial system India should be modern and corruption free.
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
29 Jan 13
Ok..this is what I actually thought...make it mandatory for every TV channel to broadcast at least one case being held in their city... And then scrap the existing law books, most are so outdated...they are as old as senile judges we have...with exception of some of course.. So about 50 lawyers sit and discuss the case...and police is asked to provide evidence..as and when needed...including expert opinion and other government records... So the lawyers discuss amongst themselves why the person is guilty and why the person is not guilty...they get paid by the channel...and people who watch the case also get to vote like they do in Sa Re Ga Ma Pa.. The lawyer who spoke for the plaintiff can also have a point against the plaintiff...effectively each lawyer looks at the case dispassionately and at the end of the session ...suggests the punishment for the crime. We get to vote whether it is the acceptable punishment or not...whichever punishment is considered right...holds good for that case and that case alone...it does not become a precedent for the next...other than ...such punishments have been suggested and given before..type. Effectively, we employ all the lawyers as judges...and we dont run short of judges or courts or court time, and we also ensure that general public votes so people have a say in the matter...if need be there can be interactive...from some locations. Those who feel they need to opine need to qualify at the interactive centers.
• India
24 Jan 13
Vandy Do you think we have any healthy judicial system left in our country.. My case still remains pending over years, the lawyer says, there is shortage of judges in high court
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
24 Jan 13
No we dont. But if the cases were telecast instead of those good for nothing serials and people got to SMS yes or no...and all the lawyers putting their arguments for or against, we might be dispensing justice faster and better and without prejudices, intimidations, and with fairness. Dont you think?
@rambansal (576)
• India
20 Jan 13
Running into fantasies is a good idea. Every human action had been a fantasy some day in the beginning. I appreciate fertility and creativity of your mind..
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
21 Jan 13
Who knows ...someday they will realize that existing system is of no use. And then they will start a new way of dispensing with justice. We may not be there to become as great as Socrates and Plato, but our ideas would survive in some minds, and help may be to forma better society. :)
@artemeis (4017)
• China
20 Jan 13
From the way you are putting it, I don't see any other faster way than giving the law enforcements to use ultimate force on criminals - take no prisoners, execute on the spot. I don't think what you are deliberating will be of help or improve the current system and other than a structural approach, I see no other way in resolving the current faulty justice system. The government itself is already condoning corruption within its rank and file, so unless the authorities are willing to abandon the "old ways" and create an untouchable department within every office to weed out the corruptions and curb further corruptions, the faulty justice will not be able to rectify by itself. Court proceedings can only be effective when both the defendants and prosecutions are given the right amount of time and rights to do their due diligence to prove their case beyond doubt. This is necessary to ensure that the actual criminal is caught to receive his dues and not wrongly punish an innocent. The public like yourself should try to be objective and confident of the justice system or they will simply resort to take matters into their own hands which will only undermine the law and entire system.
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
22 Jan 13
"Court proceedings can only be effective when both the defendants and prosecutions are given the right amount of time and rights to do their due diligence to prove their case beyond doubt." This is what I want removed...there is no differentiation between defendants, and prosecution, instead, judges sit there to decide whether there is some wrong done, whether such wrong deserves some punishment, and why it deserves more punishment, and what would be the most appropriate punishment. There is no prosecution, no defendant...just a plaintiff..and rest of the discussions are only between the judges. Each of the judges have a right to talk both in favor and against..based on merit of each case. Effectively judges argue amongst themselves whether the injury was grave enough and if so, what is the right punishment. :) That was the idea..
@thesids (22359)
• Bhubaneswar, India
20 Jan 13
In Indian context? Khap Panchayats? or even the Naxal Trail Courts thing? But then what is the assurance that the Senior Lawyers arent corrupt and not willing to succumb to political or other influences? I think I would still prefer to have it the way you mention, at least the delays to get judgements pronounced would come down and there would be quicker delivery. Anyways, there are two updates from the last week of my newspaper reading - 1. Khap Panchayats are now on FB and Twitter - trying to create awareness of their ideologies and also build a cleaner image - their people said - We are not against love marriages or inter-caste marriages, but we are against marriages within the same village and even in the same family And the second one (more related to your discussion) - One of the culprits in that Dec 16 case, has filed a petition seeking change of place (court) for the trial - and the petition states that the people trying the case and even the judge are biased due to political and other influences. The Lawyer defending them too has mentioned in the petition of being threatened
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
20 Jan 13
I am sick of these petitions. The ultimate object is to take it to a court where it is easy to manipulate things. You already know that I suspected that all this was a sham...they are waiting for public protests to die down.
@sukumar794 (5047)
• Thiruvananthapuram, India
20 Jan 13
The Indian judicial system is replete with possibilities or loopholes for vile criminals to escape the hands of true justice.It is time things are altered for the betterment of making available faithful legal options for all citizens.
@vandana7 (63805)
• India
20 Jan 13
Who knows it better than me...been fighting a case since 1984...its still in Supreme court..lol Even if Supreme court is satisfied with our arguments, it will send the matter back to high court, and then again another couple of years. The case has been on final hearing from more than an year now...