Philosophy Now Forum

I agree that plea bargaining is abhorrent, but the U.S. judicial system reflects the separation of powers. Legislative, Executive and Judicial systems operate independently as set out in the U.S. Constitution. The Judicial operates independently of government in order to prevent the abuse of power.

Wikipedia
Separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws where he urged for a constitutional government with three separate branches of government. Each of the three branches would have defined abilities to check the powers of the other branches. This idea was called separation of powers. This philosophy heavily influenced the writing of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. This United States form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.

Sounds pretty much like the U.S. in my opinion.[/size][/b]

Then not the government?

kriswest wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

kriswest wrote:Each person that commits a crime, misdemeanor or felony requires a number of people to work the case. Would you draft people to work in the court system just to speed things up?

No, enough people should be hired to expeditiously do the job, just like any other job.

And just how much do you think this will cost us? Federal, state, county, city. And who pays for training?? And just how many people do you think will be interested in such jobs that would do the jobs honestly and professionally?

It doesn't matter what the cost is, it's a basic function of government. The government should not employ anybody, but merely contract out the requirements to private companies through third-party agencies appointed by the government.

Bob. How would expanding the bureaucracy in the way you suggest lead to better economic outcomes for anybody except for Mr Ten Percent?

Obvious Leo wrote:Bob. How would expanding the bureaucracy in the way you suggest lead to better economic outcomes for anybody except for Mr Ten Percent?

I don't know what you mean by "Mr. Ten Percent," but there is no government bureaucracy since the entire judicial system is contracted out to private companies. Furthermore, I'm talking about justice, not "better economic outcomes."

Please explain how contracting the judicial system out to private corporations will lead to more just outcomes for the broader population. Please also explain why it appears that this outsourcing has already been done by way of elected prosecutors, elected judges and privatised prisons. When it comes to decision-making the primary responsibility of ALL publicly listed corporations is to their shareholders above all other stakeholder groups, and this is enforceable by law, so you are claiming that by structuring the judiciary in favour of the owners of corporations you will be putting an end to tyranny. You haven't really thought this through at all, have you, Bob?

Obvious Leo wrote:Please explain how contracting the judicial system out to private corporations will lead to more just outcomes for the broader population. Please also explain why it appears that this outsourcing has already been done by way of elected prosecutors, elected judges and privatised prisons. When it comes to decision-making the primary responsibility of ALL publicly listed corporations is to their shareholders above all other stakeholder groups, and this is enforceable by law, so you are claiming that by structuring the judiciary in favour of the owners of corporations you will be putting an end to tyranny. You haven't really thought this through at all, have you, Bob?

As a divinely inspired prophet, I don't have to think anything through at all, that's the definition being of divinely inspired. To summarize, there is absolutely no charge to anybody for using the legal system. All attorney fees and court costs are paid by the government through a third-party contracted company. Since any legal actions, whether they be civil or criminal are handled by appointed attorneys who present a balanced review of cases to professional juries, this will assure the fairest outcomes possible. I really don't understand the balance of your post.

bobevenson wrote: As a divinely inspired prophet, I don't have to think anything through at all,

No doubt this must came as a great relief to you, since you don't appear to have the correct equipment for the task.

bobevenson wrote: I really don't understand the balance of your post.

You have my sympathies, Bob. Australian English can be challenging for the poorly educated.

bobevenson wrote: As a divinely inspired prophet, I don't have to think anything through at all,

That you think this way is painfully obvious. That you are wrong about it is even more so.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote: As a divinely inspired prophet, I don't have to think anything through at all,

No doubt this must came as a great relief to you, since you don't appear to have the correct equipment for the task.

bobevenson wrote: I really don't understand the balance of your post.

You have my sympathies, Bob. Australian English can be challenging for the poorly educated.

See, your post demonstrates why it doesn't pay trying to have a polite discussion with blokes like you.

Ahh hell I do not even have to reply to him , others did it for me.

bobevenson wrote:See, your post demonstrates why it doesn't pay trying to have a polite discussion with blokes like you.

I'm always up for a polite discussion, Bob, but in my culture a polite discussion requires that people answer questions when they are put to them. Once you learn how to do this instead of digressing into yet another infantile rant then there is hope for progress.

kriswest wrote:Ahh hell I do not even have to reply to him , others did it for me.

Yeah, I usually wait for it to happen.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:See, your post demonstrates why it doesn't pay trying to have a polite discussion with blokes like you.

I'm always up for a polite discussion, Bob, but in my culture a polite discussion requires that people answer questions when they are put to them. Once you learn how to do this instead of digressing into yet another infantile rant then there is hope for progress.

Listen, pal, ask me one of your stupid fucking questions, and I'll answer it, you goofy son-of-a-bitch!