Judicial proceedings under the American Energy Party (AEP)

[henry quirk]

Sorry, Bob, but this...

"Criminal defendants or plaintiffs in any court proceedings will not hire their own attorneys. All attorneys, including those for the prosecution, will be appointed and paid for by the government."

...sounds terrible.

Don't know if it's 'socialism', but it sucks nonetheless.

[bobevenson]

Sorry, Bob, but this...

"Criminal defendants or plaintiffs in any court proceedings will not hire their own attorneys. All attorneys, including those for the prosecution, will be appointed and paid for by the government."

...sounds terrible.

Don't know if it's 'socialism', but it sucks nonetheless.

First of all, when I say all attorneys are appointed and paid for by the government, a non-governmental, independent outside organization actually provides the attorneys, but the government covers the cost. That way, both sides of any judicial proceeding have equally qualified representation. Furthermore, the concept of jury by your peers has inherent weaknesses. Let me give you just one example to illustrate my point. In the O.J. Simpson murder trial, the defense had an oratorical genius in Johnnie ("If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!") Cochran. He appealed to the emotional prejudices of a man-on-the-street jury instead of an experienced and qualified professional jury.

[henry quirk]

Bob,

If I butcher someone (and get caught) sure as shit I'll want the best my money can buy...I'm gonna look for the guy or gal who can, as you say, "appeal to the emotional prejudices of a man-on-the-street jury".

You want justice; I want 'out'.

I'm not interested in "equally qualified representation"; I want my defense to trounce the prosecution by whatever means necessary.

Your goal is laudable (equal justice under the law) but (especially if I'm the accused [especially if I'm guilty]) that ain't my bag.

[bobevenson]

Bob,

If I butcher someone (and get caught) sure as shit I'll want the best my money can buy...I'm gonna look for the guy or gal who can, as you say, "appeal to the emotional prejudices of a man-on-the-street jury".

You want justice; I want 'out'.

I'm not interested in "equally qualified representation"; I want my defense to trounce the prosecution by whatever means necessary.

Your goal is laudable (equal justice under the law) but (especially if I'm the accused [especially if I'm guilty]) that ain't my bag.

For the sake of argument, let's say you're not going to kill anybody or be prosecuted for anything. I guess what you're saying is that you don't care about justice for the rest of the world either. Well, you've made your point, my friend.

[henry quirk]

"justice for the rest of the world"

Nice idea...still ain't my bag.

[bobevenson]

"justice for the rest of the world"

Nice idea...still ain't my bag.

I guess you just want to forget about law and order, and go with anarchy. That will definitely save money on law enforcement and courts.

[henry quirk]

"law and order"..."anarchy"

So, you believe in the absence of overarching 'authority' the default is always 'anarchy', yes?

[bobevenson]

I'm sorry, but you're not making yourself clear. What are you talking about?

[henry quirk]

You wrote: "I guess you just want to forget about law and order, and go with anarchy."

In response, I asked: '...you believe in the absence of overarching 'authority' the default is always 'anarchy', yes?'

Put another way: without 'law and order' there can only be 'anarchy', yes?

[bobevenson]

You wrote: "I guess you just want to forget about law and order, and go with anarchy."

In response, I asked: '...you believe in the absence of overarching 'authority' the default is always 'anarchy', yes?'

Put another way: without 'law and order' there can only be 'anarchy', yes?

OK, I choose law and order and you choose anarchy. I understand.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



Love your ideas Bob.


Now let's own them.


What city do you live in?


What position will you be running for THIS November?


Let's get some Philosophy Now Members on this thing.



We can ALL work together.








.............................................



Let's move forward or it's ALL going to fall apart.


You have to move NOW !


Let us know ASAP!



.

[bobevenson]

What position will you be running for?

I won't be running for anything. I'm not a candidate. That would be like you asking Karl Marx what he's running for.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




So what you're saying is you really don't believe in the philosophy that you alone expound here at the forum.




That these dreams are just that...dreams.


Dreams that will never be realized because you know, better than anyone else, these thoughts are just a waste of time.




.........................................................






.

[henry quirk]

"OK, I choose law and order and you choose anarchy. I understand."

No, Bob, you don't understand.

I asked a question...asking a question is just that, 'asking a question'.

Can't see how you derive a *position (for me) from my asking a question.

I ask again: Do you believe without overarching 'authority' (law and order) the default (for a nation, a community, an individual) is always 'anarchy'?'









*that I have no faith in 'law and order' is not an automatic advocacy of 'anarchy' on my part...to assume so is simplistic, dumb, and wrong.

[henry quirk]

"We can ALL work together."

Let's not.