Dec 13, 2011, 9:39 AM
Post #6 of 6
Correct but the law (criminal) and what passes for a tort system (civil) here are two different things. I just believe we've gone too far. At least when the looser pays all there is little chance of a ridiculous suit which is often the case here. The costs associated with our system have ballooned out of control. Civil law has replaced criminal law. Insurance costs and just the fact that insurance is needed well reflect this. Consider carefully if you will the OJ case.
Re: [GeneRankin] Where is the sailing in this post?
[In reply to]
Log-In to Post/Reply
The whole thing is quite incestuous. Lawyers on both sides are the real and often the only winners. Contracts are worthless, a lawyer is needed to uphold or defend one. I'm an old guy and remember the day when one's word was binding, when a handshake was inviolate, when an accident was just that. Where criminal law was sufficient to control bad behavior, where everybody was treated a good bit more equally under the law, rich or poor.
Many would say you're wrong in what binds us together and the history of litigation in this country. In my lifetime, I remember a time when lawsuits were practically unheard of. My mother in law example is a good one, she spilled hot coffee and burned herself ... that's all. She was 80 too and as horrible as it was, she didn't even think to hold someone else responsible. Why would she?
I know this sounds like a bit of a rant and I don't want you to think I'm totally against civil suits; they have their place but they have gone out of control with no end in sight. I understand that there are more studying to be lawyers now than there are practicing lawyers. Honesty, safety, even reason, have taken a back seat to legal wrangling by lawyers paid to argue both sides of what in the end has to be, by law, a right and a wrong side.
Check Six .......Mal