|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
In defence of the press, the journos probably don't know what they're talking
about most of the time.
And as I've said before, I've had friends describe to me an event I was at. If I
didn't know otherwise, I would have sworn they were describing a different
event. Eyewitness accounts are NOTORIOUSLY unreliable.
When reporting facts, however, it should be possible to check them first ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
> And why can't a "normal" person talk to the judge in a trial?
"Normal" people are butchers, bakers and candlestick makers,
and their trades have gotten more technical over time. I would
not expect a judge to understand too much about the tech of
any case. Alsup is an exception. Other judges need a layer of
translation from normal-speak to legalese. And yes, some gets
lost in translation. This is a system design fault.
> disputes were settled without the benefit of legal counsel
> for eons before the modern legal system evolved,
Indeed, the King would hear citizens plaints at his court,
10am to noon, Tuesday and Friday. The King's word was law.
Society has (unfortunately?) grown to large and too complex
for that system to survive. A judicial-legal system has evolved
to fill the gap. This system maintains a hierarchical disjunct
between itself and the normal people who are its clients.
This is an operator error.
Note that in the US at least this system has also built through
money and political influence a union between its upper
layer and the elected government, which ought to be
constitutionally impossible.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
