Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Matt Whiting <whiting@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 03:06:43 GMT
Dave J wrote:
They are identical analogies. Your assertion was simply ludicrous.Engineers can do nothing without clients. Therefore, all structuralNo - neither of those are reasonable analogies.
failures are the result of the folks that hired the engineers to design
the structure, right?
No, they're not. A more fitting analogy, would be to a gun. As we have
all heard many times, "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
Regardless of whether you're a fan of that statement, I think the
logic matches well with lawyers and their clients -- to a degree.
Really? I've never had any of my guns talk to me and suggest I go out and shoot someone. Lawyers are all the time trying to talk clients into hiring them to sue someone. Bzzt! Please try again.
To make your engineering analogy work, a better story would be the
client who specifically asked an engineer to design the building so
cheaply that it would start to fall to pieces shortly after his client
had sold it. [ As an aside, most engineers are members of associations
like IEEE or ASME that do have ethics codes that would prohibit
this. ]
Again, this only holds if the engineer suggested to the client that they hire the engineer to design such a building. Again, I don't think this happens much in the engineering profession (I am an engineer), but it happens all of the time with lawyers. I see several TV ads EVERY time I watch TV that encourage people to do exactly this.
Most lawyerly behavior is not really immoral so much as it is amoral.
They do their job, which is very clearly defined as serving their
clients. It's an issue that has been discussed at length by attorneys
over the ages, but in the US system, courts are adversarial: the
lawyer's job is zealously represent his client. He has no
responsibility to "truth" or "social benefit," etc. (I understand that
European courts are more fact-finding and solution-seeking than
American. Typically, European judges, for example, take a more
proactive stance in managing cases than in the US, where the judge
just plays referee.)
Now, lawyers, unlike guns are people, so should have some personal
sense of right and wrong, but they also have a responsibility to do
their jobs well. It puts them in a bit of a gray area.
Bingo. This is why your analogy to guns is so stupid and wrong.
I agree with most here that the lawsuits on aircraft companies for
crashes that are not their fault are deeply, deeply, problematic, I
don't think the solution is killing the lawyers or making them somehow
more "moral." (And of course, there's the little question of who's
morality are we talking about?)
For the record, I've never advocated killing lawyers, nor would I ever. However, I do advocate a loser and loser's lawyer pays system more akin to what exists in parts of Europe.
Matt
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: BDS
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Dave J
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- References:
- Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Denny
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Jay Honeck
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Jim B
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Stefan
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Denny
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: BDS
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Matt Whiting
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: BDS
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Matt Whiting
- Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- From: Dave J
- Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- Prev by Date: Re: Taking the pledge
- Next by Date: Re: IFR just 5.4% of the time
- Previous by thread: Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- Next by thread: Re: Insane Legal System - was SR22 Crash
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|