Reformation.

johnnyskeleton

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

Does the medical profession still use leaches and medical terms of outdated practices in the 1800's? If fact if anything, the medical profession are an extremely good example of a profession that does not weigh itself down in precedence and concerns itself with the best that science can offer NOW in the present.

No but it still uses penicillin, quinnine, leg splints, anasthetics, surgeries, etc that date back a hundred year or more. Why? Because things that have stood the test of time have been kept and those which don't are discarded.

At no point did someone come along and say "medicine is rubbish, lets scrap it all and start again from scratch" without pointing out those areas which are good and which are not.

In terms of the legal system, a similar situation exists. Laws which have proved useful such as the prohibition on murder have been kept. Those which have not e.g. the rule against marital rape have been discarded.

You don't seem to understand the fairly basis concept that science develops over time and is simply a modern thing., nor does someone come along one day and say "this is science, that is not science". The system of laws we have is based on how long established rules have been changed, improved and sometimes discarded as society has progressed.

Really, unless you have substance to your claims, I don't see the point in discussing these generalities with you. As they might say in AH, specifics, or GTFO.

FreudianSlippers

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

By making judges affordable and effectively managing the lists?

It has nothing to do with affordability of Judges. IMO the problem is in the listing system - I think there are far too many cases for the current system.

Cases getting dragged out over decades isn't awkward?

Can you highlight any of these cases that have been dragged out over decades?

That's what I came here to ask? I want to learn what the options are.

That's not the way this forum (or any other on boards) works. You don't just come in here and vaguely say the system is broken and then expect us to tell you why/how.

The alternatives are Civil Law or Religious Law; Civil Law has its advantages, but is lacking in stare decisis which, IMO, allows the law to evolve more rapidly in the direction of current life/values/etc.

For someone with an FSM in their sig you project your own belief on to others really.

What does that have to do with anything? I'm not projecting anything. I'm just asking for what you're talking about... it's not difficult.

I don't own a TV, I've seen Irish law with my own eyes and am quite convinced that it's badly in need of change.

Good for you. Why is it badly in need of change?

So tell me, what does the use of terms originating in another language actually serve, when the functional language used in every day life can serve that purpose just as well?

So you suggest we don't speak English in trial because it contains terms originating in another language?

Can you provide any examples of a situation where courts do not use "functional everyday language" and how there would be benefit in using such language?

Does the medical profession still use leaches and medical terms of outdated practices in the 1800's?

Yes.

If fact if anything, the medical profession are an extremely good example of a profession that does not weigh itself down in precedence and concerns itself with the best that science can offer NOW in the present.

Think about what you're saying very carefully; medicine isn't worried about precedent?

Mosby's Medical Dictionary wrote:

[pres′ədənt]
Etymology: L, praecedere, to go before

a previously adjudged decision that serves as an authority in a similar case.

Medicine is almost entirely precedent based.

Also, how in the name of all things spaghetti did you take it to infer that I think Legal professionals are not necessary!!??!! How?

What's your point then? You stated that the obscure language etc. was part of the problem. You're complaining about the costs - I can only draw the conclusion that you think it should be a lawyerless place where Joe Soap off the street goes in, the Judge says "story?" and [insert any episode of Judge Judy here].

Legal systems are complex and functional requiring highly specialized professionals to operate, I'm simply saying lose the embellishments, get with the times and operate like your fellow professionals in other industries.

What embellishments? What's wrong with those embellishments? Can you give me examples of other industries that have had to "get with the times"?

Anything that brings law in to the realm of affordable, thousands are already out the affordability of many people, let along tens and hundreds of thousands should a case escalate.

Have you ever considered it's just capitalism? Would you be happy if the government started saying how much a carpenter could charge?

If you're unhappy with how much your solicitor is charging then get a new one. Law is expensive and if you think this is any different in the USA or elsewhere, you're kidding yourself.

Now that you've made me think about it, state legal support is only available for criminal defense? I was more thinking the fact that you can be sued and not necessarily be able to afford your defense, but I defer to your expertise on this.

There is civil legal aid, but you must satisfy a means test and show that your case has merit (that is: a prospect of success, whether there is a means of alternative resolution and a cost/benefit analysis).

If you are being sued and you satisfy this you may get civil legal aid. You should also consider if you're being sued whether or not there is a good reason for that. I mean, if you're going to win why worry about costs?

An injunction is an expensive accusation where the court decides if it has basis to proceed, that doesn't necessarily make it deserved, and cost really shouldn't be a factor when deciding if an accusation has grounds in law or not.

No. An injunction is an Order restraining a person from carrying out an act or requiring a person to perform an act.
It is then for the party seeking that injunction to prove that their right(s) need to be protected from infringement. If you're it's not an "expensive accusation" and the courts will not grant injunctions to protect trivial rights.

I suggest you read up on this area, even wikipedia.

I see your point, I'd simply argue that the optical reflects the attitudes dragged forward, the idea of tradition which has no more a functional basis then the idea of religious practices as valid because they are traditional.

No... that makes no sense. Are you complaining about wigs and gowns here?
Or is your problem that we practice common law? You need to be more specific about how "tradition" is causing any problems.

Agreed. And if you want to take anything away from my angst on the subject, its the need for independent oversight.

I have no problem with independent oversight. The Minister's proposals are anything but that.

Case in point, a Solicitor I know of had a will originating in their office contested, on submission to forensic testing, it turned out the Signature was forged. This was not pursued on the excuse that the forgery was not shown to have come from the solicitor, but rather their office despite the will being forged to this solicitors benefit.

That makes no sense.

This is what I've come to the legal discussion forum for, and what I'd love to learn.

On boards you do not get to just come in and invite people to tell you why things should change. It makes no sense. Post something with detail as to why you think the system isn't working - vagueness and asking us to tell you why we should keep the system isn't gonna cut it.

I've had friends who've gone through that process and it's not equitable, it serves as a barrier to entry in to the profession where if you're not well funded or don't have the means to persevere through the entire process you can't make it.

What?

I may be ranting, but reasons like this are one of so many that make the overall picture seem so negative. I'm not here to antagonize you or the legal profession, but I view changing Ireland's legal system as being critical to reforming the country as a whole in the issues it faces. We are in the depths of our worst financial and economic crises and now more then ever we need start-ups, the costs of liability, liability insurance, and legal costs to meet the needs of establishing an business are the most extreme I've seen in Ireland in comparison to most other countries I've lived in. This is literally choking our societies ability to prosper survive and driving our entrepreneurs to other economies when we need them most. Add to that the impact on the individual and wider society in general.

Can you explain how the cost of private transactions on a client-lawyer basis is adding to the financial and economic crisis?

In a sense, we need "good lawyers" now more then ever.

What does that mean?

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

If you don't care to see the faults, I can't help you any more then someone who wishes to believe what they want to see.

That makes, literally, no sense.

Where upon FreudianSlippers goes on to say:


The system is so overly expensive it can't afford it's own functionaries. There's a word for that: Dysfunctional.

You're taking what I said incorrectly. I'm not saying there are undue delays - the legal system is slow moving at times. It's just the nature of it.
In the interests of fairness you have to give parties adequate time to do things; it doesn't mean the system is broken, it means it is working.

Quote me two things:
The hourly rates for barristers and senior council.

There is no such thing as an hourly rate. Am I correct in proposing that the government steps in to regulate the amount people can charge for services in private transactions? That's wild, communist stuff there isn't it?

And the cost of an injunction at each level.

You seem to be obsessed with injunctions. Either way, it really depends on the solicitor's fees. It's also likely to be more expensive for the person applying for the injunction.

Boards can't criticize MCD, journalists can't run stories, and O'Brien and Desmond can libel defame anyone they want to muzzle them and your saying justice isn't lacking. You don't want to see it do you?

Firstly, you're lacking even a functional knowledge of defamation here. Boards can criticise MCD or anyone they want once it is not defamatory.
Journalists can run stories once they're not defamatory.

I suggest you have a look here and do some reading, especially defences under part 3.

You completely ignored the risk part. Personal experience with the court system, we had our claim set in time but thanks to the obscurities around law we couldn't be outright sure that we would win and costs awarded. This is bull****, a person/group shouldn't have to incur the risk of hundreds of thousands in costs to defend themselves.

You can never be sure you will win anything. If you have a strong case then you should take it; otherwise you shouldn't. You think there should be no risk in taking a legal action? Never going to happen and doesn't happen anywhere that I can think of.

Are you joking? Seriously, words such as entwined and items such as these that could be described in English:
http://legum.org/

This is ridiculous. You're on a crusade against Latin now too?

I work IT, I know technical professions, it's not jargon for the sake of jargon, words have meaning and originate in the same language they were conceived, we do not take to describing system architecture in Latin......

It's not jargon for the sake of jargon. They are concise and precise words used - "plain" English in place of them would make things way more confusing.

That's the crux of the problem: "Silly new laws" whereas the old ones are rarely reviewed to the "test of time" unless there is a massive societal uproar to get it addressed, the illegality of homosexuality being a good example of this.

You're not making a good case for your point here... you're describing a legislative problem.

I can't believe your arguing this in a country that's silly enough to have laws against blasphemy.

Yes, introduced into legislation in the Defamation Act 2009 by the legislature... this has what exactly to do with the Courts?

If you're going to push me for examples, give some yourself.

This is your thread. The onus is on you.

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

If I pick this up right than an individual can utilize money and an accusation that stands basic scrutiny to restrict another persons constitutional rights :eek:

I so hope I'm wrong in thinking this, otherwise things are far worse then I thought and my worst fears about the dysfunction of Ireland realized.

You're picking it up incorrectly. You don't just walk in and get an injunction, you need to satisfy the Court that you deserve one.

The Commission is an independent body established under the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. Our purpose is to keep the law under review and make recommendations for law reform so that the law reflects the changing needs of Irish society.

I suggest you look here.

Procrastastudy

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
void main()
{
cout << "Hello World!" << endl; cout << "Welcome to C++ Programming" << endl; }

OMG I don't understand that having not invested anytime what so ever in looking at a C++ Book! The IT industry is elitist and badly in need of a rewrite from the ground up!

I really thought we were in for a sensible discussion when you first posted but it seems you are unwilling to even go an look up "common law" on wikipedia.

If you are going to make an assertion in an effort to illicit a response from people at least go and do some research to challenge their argument when it is put forward. Before anyone goes slagging me off for my first post I did do some background research first :P

MagicSean

Inverse to the power of one! wrote: »

If I pick this up right than an individual can utilize money and an accusation that stands basic scrutiny to restrict another persons constitutional rights :eek:

I so hope I'm wrong in thinking this, otherwise things are far worse then I thought and my worst fears about the dysfunction of Ireland realized.

You would prefer people had the ability to interfere with your constitutional rights whenever they want?

johnnyskeleton

I see that Inverse to the power of one! has now closed his boards.ie account.

In summary, I suspect his point was this:

1. He was facing injunctive proceedings which he believed he was correct in defending.

2. He went to a solicitor seeking representation and advice to the effect that he would definately win.

3. No solicitor can give that advice (after all, he could be lying and the other side might have very good supporting documentation etc to prove this) and told him that there is always a risk of being unsuccessful and thereby exposing ones self to costs.

4. He therefore refused to defend the proceedings and infers from this one experience that the entire legal profession is unfair.

Well, the simple answer is that no solicitor can ever give a guarantee of success, because to do so would expose the solicitor to a negligence claim if it doesn't work out. Besides, a solicitor can only say what the law is, not how it will be applied in a particular case.

If he didn't want to run that risk on a cost/benefit analysis, that is fine. If he ran it and won, then there wouldn't be a problem. If he ran it and lost, it is likely that he has breached someone else's rights and they were correct to seek redress.

Any of the above outcomes seem reasonably fair. The only likely situation where it would not be fair is where there may be a good defence, but it is only a 50:50 shot. He therefore claims that the rule that costs follow the event is unjust, because it discouraged him from running a "have a go" defence to proceedings without any risk of having to pay for it..

If the shoe were on the other foot though, I'm sure he would complain that he couldn't get lawyers to run his own injunction claim because they had to be paid upfront as there was no mechanism for the payment of costs. If he were in such a situation, the rule about costs would seem fair and reasonable.

Thus, what is needed is not total overhaul of the system, but a little perspective.

newmug

The "law" is badly in need of a shakedown though. Read the below thread for an example of injustice. Note the peoples responses.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056549268&page=2

johnnyskeleton

newmug wrote: »

The "law" is badly in need of a shakedown though. Read the below thread for an example of injustice. Note the peoples responses.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056549268&page=2

Why? Why do people think they can just lazily link a thread and say "look at this for an example of what I mean". What's in that thread to suggest there is a need for law reform?

Tom Young

And in the AH thread of all places .... Like!!

ResearchWill

newmug wrote: »

The "law" is badly in need of a shakedown though. Read the below thread for an example of injustice. Note the peoples responses.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056549268&page=2

So what is the injustice that the accused got a directed not guilty verdict http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0215/mccaugheym.html or that the robber got a compensation payment.