From this Miami Herald article, it is apparent that governments stand ready to cut spending on justice because they are simply so wasteful with money.
I think both sides of this debate miss the point.
Yes, the judiciary is important, but that depends upon what it is that the judiciary is enforcing. We had a pretty good common law system, and it was thrown out with the bath water in sympathy to the desires of legislators to develop statutory law. Statutory law is not an objective (rational) standard of justice. It is based on legislature appeasement, concessions/exemptions, etc, as opposed to principles held in context of other principles. It has resulted in justice descending to arbitrary law, which we of course associate with arbitrary authoritarian rule. Democracy is thus merely a legitimatised form of tyranny.
Plans to cut spending on judiciary invoke plans to cut back upon the most important aspect of govt work. Quite the paradox don't you think?
Lawyers, despite all the great perform they do on part of their customers, usually have a relatively inadequate popularity and individuals have a deficiency of believe in in them. There are various factors for this, not least the variety of so-called "ambulance chasers" and damage statements solicitors that have popped up over the last several years or so.
ReplyDeleteLavelle Coleman.