Legal system

[BuyOurEverything]

How would the legal system work in a socialist society? Would there be lawyers and if so who would chose who gets the best ones and if not, how would trials work? I have a few ideas but none of them are very good. Anyone?

[sc4r]

you could have a legal system that works by having a defence and a prosecution each determined to present its case to maximum effect with something independent (say a jury) deciding which is more likely.

Or you could charge the 'prosecuitor' responsible for bringing out all the facts and presenting them dispassionately for jus=dgement.

Ort you could have something in-between.

It is not really a socialist issue. Dont assume that every problem of society is. It causes divisions where none should exist.

Thera are, of course, things about the US and Uk legal systems that work under capitalist rules and you can safely assume that these rules would be transformed under socialism. But fundamentals unconnected to reward and payment are entirely separate issues.

[redstar2000]

I don't think that there's much doubt that the entire existing legal system would be instantly abolished. A general amnesty would probably be issued, releasing everyone.

What should we put in its place?

In the early days, I expect criminal justice would be "rough & ready"--that is, local communities would handle crimes of violence with a quick "trial" and summary execution.

Property crimes might best be dealt with by exile. Even the dumbest jerk should learn something after three or four times of being put out on the highway without food or water and told to start walking.

As time passed, some norms would be gradually established about what would be considered a "fair trial", the rights of the accused, etc. Juries, I expect, would be much larger than they are now...perhaps consisting of everyone in the community who wanted a part in the decision of guilt or innocence.

The "legal code" would be far simpler, negating the need for "specialists"...lawyers. But there might be folks of particular eloquence who would volunteer to accuse or defend in a particular case.

It would take some time to set up, but I expect forensic evidence would become far more important than human testimony...in the long run.

Just a few thoughts on the subject...



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

So in summary Rs :

1st we set every murderer, rapist, paedophile, and other menace loose upon the people who have just spontaneously revolted and overthrown their oppressor.

2nd we let kangaroo courts hang anmyone who upsets us at all; in the name of a free, and fair society which holds all human life and dignity including that of criminals sacred.

3rd Everybody stops working and devotes themselves full time to judging others.

4th WE make the legal code simpler (how? you dont say of course).

God man you get more rediculous, contradictory, and plain hopeful with every passing day.

What are you trying to do? win a personal following of the young and uninformed at any cost? It seems you will promise them every one of their hearts desires and assure them that there is no cost or difficulty in any of it. All they have to do is believe in Redstar and even contradictory wishes will be granted.

[BuyOurEverything]

I agree with sc4r on this one. redstar, you are an idiot. I don't think charging the prosecutor to bring out all the facts would work because there is nothing to stop them from omitting details or slanting the truth if they wanted to convict someone they didn't like or aquit one of their friends. I definately think there would still be a need for lawyers, anyone that says that there isn't is a fool orasn't really thought about it with any depth. My question was, however, how would you assign lawyers to a certain case, especially for civil cases(granted there would be alot less civil cases with the lack of corporations and a lot of private property but there still would be some). In a capatilistic society, the rich get the better lawyers and obviously that is wrong but how would you decide who gets the better lawyers in a socialist society and lets not kid ourselves, there will always be lawyers that are better than others. I mean, would it be fair to select them at random and set up a law school graduate against an accomplished lawyer who has been practising for 30 years in a big murder trial? Also, what's to stop someone from recklessly litigating anyone they didn't like if they didn't have to pay for it?

[redstar2000]

Thus speaketh the p.r. guy for Socialism, Inc....

1st we set every murderer, rapist, paedophile, and other menace loose upon the people who have just spontaneously revolted and overthrown their oppressor.

The overwhelming majority of people in prison now are there for possession of illegal drugs and crimes against property. A general amnesty in real revolutions is customary because it is assumed that nearly all who are in prison under the old regime are there unjustly.

That's probably pretty close to the truth of the matter.

2nd we let kangaroo courts hang anyone who upsets us at all; in the name of a free, and fair society which holds all human life and dignity including that of criminals sacred.

They will be "kangaroo" only in the sense of being new while procedures are still in the process of formation and societal conditions generally are pretty disorganized.

And some life is not "sacred", not now and not then either.

3rd Everybody stops working and devotes themselves full time to judging others.

Don't be any sillier than you already are.(&#33 The only trials liable to bring out a "full house" are the same kinds that attract enormous media attention now. And, in the long run, I'd rather have a jury of 500...if I were innocent, of course.

4th WE make the legal code simpler (how? you don't say of course).

I thought it would be obvious--though not to you, of course. My guess is that 90% of the legal code exists for the purpose of maintaining the privileges of property or attempting to impose religious morality on the population. It will all be gone with the wind.

What will concern people in the early years after the revolution will likely be personal safety from violent criminals, the ethical behavior of those chosen to carry out public functions, and revenge on the officials and security personnel of the old regime.

The first "criminal codes" of the new society will probably fit on two or three pieces of paper. And I don't anticipate that they will ever evolve into the baroque monstrosity that we have now. There's be no need for such idiocy.

What are you trying to do? win a personal following of the young and uninformed at any cost? It seems you will promise them every one of their heart's desires and assure them that there is no cost or difficulty in any of it. All they have to do is believe in Redstar and even contradictory wishes will be granted.

Whatever you say, squire.



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

I definitely think there would still be a need for lawyers, anyone that says that there isn't is a fool or hasn't really thought about it with any depth.

That's probably because you're still thinking in terms of class society.

Start by asking yourself: what would lawyers DO in a communist society?

In particular, what could they do that ordinary people couldn't do just as well or perhaps even better?

Think different.



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[sc4r]

In all fairness the problem with civil cases does not really arise. Because there is no individual ownership of the means of production a great many of the sort of disputes that get settled in civil courts simply wont arise in the first place; and those that do will be much simpler and more straightforward. I imagine that most socialists would see people disputing custody of kids, seeking noise abatements, claiming personal debts, and that sort of thing would be expected to represent themselves in front of a judge or jury more in line with the sort of procedure that is followed in a small claims court now.

Dont forget that the other sort of case which increasingly enters the courts (claims for damages against firms for bad employment practises etc) should not exist since it is surely ludicrous for a Socialist to expect society to grant him penal damages.

Which leaves people accused of criminal offences. Now in point of fact quite a few countries do not have adversarial systems. In these countries the police / law enforcement agencies are expected to present evidence fairly not to secure convictions at all costs. It is not unreasonable in such circumstances again to expect people to represent themselves.

Anyone who has actually seen lawyers defending routine cases will know that a very large part of their work consists of nothing much more than looking for procedural errors by police or prosecution and routinely accusing the police of fit-ups etc. Quite why we have allowed such a ludicrous situation to come into existence where all too often whether someone is found guilty or not depends not upon whether it seems likely they actually are guilty (which is often almost beyond question), but upon whether the absolute letter of the law has been followed I do not really understand. I suspect that this is more the work of lawyers (for whom it creates business) than anything else.

You cannot, of course, ever ensure that there is absolutely no chance of someone being victimised by an ambitous or misguided prosecutor. But then again in the other system you cant seem to prevent lawyers effectively victimising the intenmtion of the law. Its all about achieving a balance.

I imagine RS will insist that only a system which can be guaranteed never to convict wrongly is acceptable. Fact is that no such system has ever been devised which did not by virtue of that ensure that many guilty go free.

Personally I would say that any socialist society which cannot rely upon its legal system and officers to do their duty without fitting up accused people or distorting the facts is going to be unworkable anyway. So I would not see any need for private lawyers at all. It might be that a modified version of the adversarial system could be usefully employed in more complex cases to genuinely ensure that no accidental bias crept in and no pre-judging took place, but I'm quite sure that in such cases it could be left to society to ensure tht an appropriately skilled person was assigned to each 'side'.

best wishes.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by sc4r@Sep 9 2003, 02:43 AM
4th WE make the legal code simpler (how? you dont say of course).

Well, they say that possession in nine-tenths of the law, so when property is not such a big deal the law will have 90% cut from it.

[BuyOurEverything]

I agree with some of what you said about lawyer manipulating procedural error to get aquittals but I don't think it's possible for one person to present a case absolutely fairly without bias. I agree most of the civil law would be irrelevant but I was thinking kind of in terms of defemation and child custody as you mentioned. A jury is 500 is unnessary and also unfair because it's alot harder to find 500 unbiased people than 12. People shouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury just because they want to! Imagine a case against an accused chil molestor! Community activist groups would get together and all sit on the jury and the case would be over before it began, they wouldn't even look at the evidence.

I thought it would be obvious--though not to you, of course. My guess is that 90% of the legal code exists for the purpose of maintaining the privileges of property or attempting to impose religious morality on the population. It will all be gone with the wind.

True, alot of it is but it's not 90% and even if it was, 10% of our current laws is still a fuck load more than would fit onto three sheets of paper. Everyone is horribly naieve if they think that we can just simplify the legal system to the point that we don't need lawyers. The second we did that, there would be debates about things not covered and different interperetations about things that are covered. Laws need to cover EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that could possibly arrise otherwise you're leaving the justice system at the mercy of the whims of a judge or sherriff or angry mob.

[Conghaileach]

Originally posted by redstar2000@Sep 9 2003, 04:12 AM
Start by asking yourself: what would lawyers DO in a communist society?

In particular, what could they do that ordinary people couldn't do just as well or perhaps even better?

I think lawyers would still exist as professionals in their field, just as we'd still have brain surgeons and other specialist professions. I imagine that the difference would be that these lawyers would be motivated by genuinely wanting to serve the community, rather than the money.


I'm currently trying to get information on the Brehon Laws. It was a set of laws practiced in Ireland until a few hundred years ago. If a Brehon, or judge, were to make a bad decision it could be challenged by those who feel wronged and if another judge found the first's decision to be wrong then he would be punished. The Brehons were well respected by all of the clans.

The laws were considered very democratic. A king carrying building material to his castle had the same and only the same claim for right of way as the miller carrying material to build his mill; the poorest man in the land could compel payment of a debt from a noble or could levy a distress upon the king himself; the man who stole the needle of a poor embroidery woman was compelled to pay a far higher fine than the man who stole the queen's needle. (Source)

To be honest I don't know much about the Laws, so maybe I should wait until I'm more knowledgable before commenting further.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by BuyOurEverything@Sep 9 2003, 03:32 AM
I agree with some of what you said about lawyer manipulating procedural error to get aquittals but I don't think it's possible for one person to present a case absolutely fairly without bias. I agree most of the civil law would be irrelevant but I was thinking kind of in terms of defemation and child custody as you mentioned. A jury is 500 is unnessary and also unfair because it's alot harder to find 500 unbiased people than 12. People shouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury just because they want to! Imagine a case against an accused chil molestor! Community activist groups would get together and all sit on the jury and the case would be over before it began, they wouldn't even look at the evidence.

I thought it would be obvious--though not to you, of course. My guess is that 90% of the legal code exists for the purpose of maintaining the privileges of property or attempting to impose religious morality on the population. It will all be gone with the wind.

True, alot of it is but it's not 90% and even if it was, 10% of our current laws is still a fuck load more than would fit onto three sheets of paper. Everyone is horribly naieve if they think that we can just simplify the legal system to the point that we don't need lawyers. The second we did that, there would be debates about things not covered and different interperetations about things that are covered. Laws need to cover EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that could possibly arrise otherwise you're leaving the justice system at the mercy of the whims of a judge or sherriff or angry mob.

you could be right.

I'd think that where profesional expertise is needed to get at the facts for some reason then you are probably right that it would be more reliable to employ a 'for' and 'against' lawyer / team to work independently from the two sides.

I would have envisioned that such teams would be assigned by the court to whom the case was brought. I'd feel it reasonable to expect the court to appoint balanced teams. If you cant trust the court to do this fairly then you cannot expect a fair verdict when it comes to judgement anyway.

[BuyOurEverything]

OK, so the judge would appoint the lawyers, good idea. I still don't think that it would be a good idea to have a one lawyer system in any cases, as then who would decide which cases get two lawyers and which get one? It would be a slam dunk appeal for anyone who lost and so what's the point of having the first trial at all? Also, a lot of what people consider to be "procedural" arguments for aquittals are actually important in my opinion. I mean, what's the point of having procedures if you don't follow them? Police tend to violate people's rights on a daily basis by not making sure they understand their Miranda rights or by performing illegal search and seizure etc.

[sc4r]

Again I understand why you say this, and of course its not without some merit, ther are for and against arguments But in this case, on balance, I honestly dont agree.

The only reason is allow an appeal is important fresh evidence, or genuine evidence that the procedure during the initial trial was so butchered as to render it biased. In the second case I'd be saying that sever disciplinary actiion, probably dismissal, possibly criminal proceedings, should be brought against the judge.

Unlike some people I dont have such a lack of faith in people that I think that the only way to guarantee they do their job fairly is if they do it to the letter of the book. I know for a certain fact that far too many guilty people are retrialed, sometimes aquitted, based on what is a trivial almost spurious technical error. I also know that such accusations are very common.

It is all about balance again. No judgement system can be expected to be perfect and I see no reason why society should spend fortunes attempting to be perfect from the point of view of a defendant. Miistakes will occur either way, its unavoidable, and while we should certainly train both police and judges not to make such mistakes I dont think that when they do make trivial ones it ought to mean that society bears such a high cost (both in terms of retrials and in terms of allowing criminals to walk free).

I have a belief that a socialist system (by its nature intended to deliver justice to all) would be rather less inclined to discriminate against certain groups too.

But like I say this really is a judgement call. An extreme view either way is probably wrong.

[BuyOurEverything]

I see your point but I think you're being a little too idealistic. In a town or city that might work but in a country or the world I think law needs to be defined a specifically as possible otherwise you're just leaving it open to interperetation and that creates injustice. Also, everyone is biased one way or another. Instead of trying to hide by having one person try to be balanced, why not just admit it and have two people that openly admit their bias? I see no real advantage to the one lawyer system except that it is moderately less costly but I think justice is one of the most important things in a society and we can afford it. Why have social justice if you're not going to have criminal justice?

[sc4r]

Originally posted by BuyOurEverything@Sep 9 2003, 07:02 AM
I see your point but I think you're being a little too idealistic. In a town or city that might work but in a country or the world I think law needs to be defined a specifically as possible otherwise you're just leaving it open to interperetation and that creates injustice. Also, everyone is biased one way or another. Instead of trying to hide by having one person try to be balanced, why not just admit it and have two people that openly admit their bias? I see no real advantage to the one lawyer system except that it is moderately less costly but I think justice is one of the most important things in a society and we can afford it. Why have social justice if you're not going to have criminal justice?

Well if you can afford it, ie there is nothing else you see as more important, then of course you should have it. If this were put to a vote in a socialist society and your view prevailed I'd have no grouch.

I stress I'm not going either for a single lawyer system or an adversarial system. I'm advocating a halfway house where a judge (or a jury) decides which is appropriate. I can think of ways to build fairly cheap controls into such a situation to make it less error prone and random. For example limiting sentence on single lawyer cases to (say) 2 years maximum.

I'm afraid we just have to agree to disagree on written procedure. I think it must be obvious that written procedure no matter how detailed is always capable of being challenged anyway, in fact all that happens beyond a certain point is that the written procedures themselves start to become confusing and contradictory and they are always open to interpretation anyway.

This last point frequently gets forgotten. The asumption people make is that when they say something it communicates both what is intended to everyone, and that everyone understands it the same. regrettably this is almost never true. I will go so far as to guarantee that there are things you think you are communicating to me that I'm not getting, and vice versa. Its not because either of us is deliberately misunderstanding. Its just that neither of us (like everyone else) communicate perfectly.

[redstar2000]

A jury is 500 is unnecessary and also unfair because it's a lot harder to find 500 unbiased people than 12.

I'm afraid you have been fooled by the myth of the "unbiased juror". There's no such thing.

The functional purpose of a "small" jury is so that they can argue the merits of the evidence with each other. The functional purpose of a "large" jury is to simply vote on the evidence, guilty or innocent.

But do not think for a second that any potential juror is "innocent of bias"...no living adult meets that qualification or ever will.

Laws need to cover EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that could possibly arise...

You sound like someone who aspires to a career in the law.

No, I think in communist society there will be broad principles of acceptable and unacceptable behavior and communities will work out the details in practice (or what is called "case law" now).

When a problem arises, the first thing people will do is go to the internet and look up all the relevant cases that have already been decided...which will probably give them a pretty good idea what to do. If it is something that really is completely new, then they will innovate...possibly provoking a regional, "national", or international debate.

OK, so the judge would appoint the lawyers, good idea.

What judge? You mean that pompous, narrow-minded asshole that sits up on a kind of throne in the front of the room and browbeats the crap out of people?

We won't have those.

There will, no doubt, be someone in the front of the room to chair the meeting--that's what "trials" will really be, meetings--but s/he won't be a "judge" in any current sense of the word.

...see people disputing custody of kids...

In communist society, children are not property. They choose who they want to live with and if the person they choose is agreeable, that's an end to it.



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[Invader Zim]

Redstar in no situation is the death sentance necesary, that makes the state as bad as the criminal. Also what happens if there is a miscarrage of justice? You will have just sent and innocent person to the gallows. They should be imprisoned fir violant crimes, in a caring enviroment, so as to rehabilitate rather than punish.

As for petty crimes community service is a much more productive and efficent system of rehabilitation, allowing the individuals to become productive members of socioty again.

With the legalisation of drugs many of the problems caused by these drugs will vanish. If drugs are given free (in moderation) to addicts to get them off the drugs so they no longer need to commit crimes to feed their addictions. Much crime will be removed almost instantly.

Redstar you claim to hate lawyers yet in other threads you support them and listen to their every conservative word with rapture as if it is the gosple, or did you forget that "junkscience.com" is run by an attorney? Now suddenly you wish to dismantle the proffesion of a person you stolidly support. A little hypocritical, or are you doing an elijahcraig on us?

[redstar2000]

Redstar in no situation is the death sentence necessary, that makes the state as bad as the criminal. Also what happens if there is a miscarriage of justice? You will have just sent an innocent person to the gallows. They should be imprisoned for violent crimes, in a caring environment, so as to rehabilitate rather than punish.

Well, there won't be a "state" in the contemporary sense of that word.

As to your general recommendation, things might work out that way, but I'm pretty skeptical.

For example, if you have prisons, then it follows that you must have guards. What kind of mind-set does someone have or develop over time in order to be able to cage humans and still live with himself?

Nothing even close to communist, that's for sure!

Then, there is also the public safety to consider...why should we tolerate the violently anti-social element in our midst? True, we could all carry weapons and turn our homes into fortresses, etc....but that seems like a pretty shitty way to live. Just ask the folks in Baghdad or Kabul these days.

I don't think that sort of "atmosphere" makes much of a contribution to communism either.

I reluctantly conclude therefore that when people violently attack others, commit forcible rape, or murder...that the rest of us are better off if those individuals are executed.

As I noted earlier, I think that in the long run forensic evidence (rather than human testimony) will come to be used to ultimately determine guilt or innocence...and thus sharply reduce the chances of sending an innocent person to death. There's a marked trend in that direction even now.

Finally, and this is difficult to measure, humans do seem to have a basic sense of justice that they want to see happen. Those who injure, rape or kill others "should" be made to suffer or die. Since I am opposed to making people suffer, I prefer the death penalty. I think it's actually more humane than what we do now...imprisonment for decades.

And it costs a lot less.



The RedStar2000 Papers
A site about communist ideas

[BuyOurEverything]

I'm afraid you have been fooled by the myth of the "unbiased juror". There's no such thing.

I'm not pretending that juries are completely unbiased but they're alot more unbiased then 500 people who woke up one morning and said, "ya know what? I'm in a bad mood, I'm gonna go hang someone today." Also, you failed to address the possibility of special interest groups loading the jury.

Laws need to cover EVERY SINGLE SITUATION that could possibly arise...

You sound like someone who aspires to a career in the law.

No, I think in communist society there will be broad principles of acceptable and unacceptable behavior and communities will work out the details in practice (or what is called "case law" now).

When a problem arises, the first thing people will do is go to the internet and look up all the relevant cases that have already been decided...which will probably give them a pretty good idea what to do. If it is something that really is completely new, then they will innovate...possibly provoking a regional, "national", or international debate.

You either make a decision in law, or let someone else decide at the trial, simple as that. Wouldn't it be better to make the law the same wherever you live? Not to mention, using old cases on the internet to make a decision is just another form of law. The more cases and conflicting judgments you get, the more complicated it would be to figure out what is applicable. You haven't solved anything.

What judge? You mean that pompous, narrow-minded asshole that sits up on a kind of throne in the front of the room and browbeats the crap out of people?

We won't have those.

There will, no doubt, be someone in the front of the room to chair the meeting--that's what "trials" will really be, meetings--but s/he won't be a "judge" in any current sense of the word.

Call him what you want

In communist society, children are not property. They choose who they want to live with and if the person they choose is agreeable, that's an end to it.

You're going to let a three year old decide if he wants to stay with his mom or dad?