- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated November 8, 2017 at 8:26 pm by .
November 4, 2017 at 2:40 am #1328
Is our Justice System Unjust?
It’s no secret that paying legal fees is incredibly expensive. It is not uncommon for people to go into heavy debt and haves their lives and careers in shambles after a legal suit. In fact, many times, even when people win lawsuits, they still end up losing money, just because of the incredible amount of money they have to pay to their lawyers. However, these problems have been, to an extent, addressed. In the United States, if you are unable to afford a private lawyer, a public defender will be assigned to handle your case. However, public defenders are often difficult to obtain, because most crimes are committed by impoverished people, thus, in many cases impoverished people are unable to find a public defender. Thus, they end up spending a large amount of money that they will most likely spend a significant portion of their lives paying for. However, things are sometimes worse for people in the middle class, because very often, they do have enough money for a lawyer, but just barely, and if they are in a suit against a large company, the large company can continually force the defendant to appear in court, and economically drain the defendant/accuser, whilst spending their own pocket change on experienced layers and attorneys.
But here is another question, do wealthy people deserve better representation in court? That is more difficult to answer, but I do believe it is unjust for a incredibly wealthy company/individual to purposefully take someone of a poorer background to court repeatedly in order to prevent them from being able to afford another legal trip against the said company. This is wrong, but commonly practiced. It is often used in lawsuits over “Fair Use”, when a company has some of their work criticized, they often file a suit against the one who criticized them, and, even if they continually lose, they file suit after suit, because they know, eventually the accused will become broke.
November 8, 2017 at 8:26 pm #1345
I think I understand your overall point, but I believe you are contradicting yourself at some points. I think your point is that it is unjust for companies to drain money from common people. You say that if a person cannot afford a lawyer, the government will supply one, but the government will not always supply one to poor people. So are poor people being provided a lawyer or not?
From what you are saying, it seems that you are implying that the government should supply everyone with the money to defend themselves against the government. That the government is unjust to not supply lawyers to those in the middle class. I think, however, you mean that it is unjust for companies to mercilessly fight people in court. When they do this, people lose a lot of money, and their lives are often ruined. Companies are concerned with their own affairs and not the affairs of the city thus making them unjust. So, if I understood your main point correctly, I believe that I agree with it, I was just expanding on your argument.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.