4 ms·
"IMO courts should attempt to discover what is true and rule on that" But how do the courts do that when only one party is presenting the evidence? The only wa
by jeffmould 10y ago
"IMO courts should attempt to discover what is true and rule on that"
But how do the courts do that when only one party is presenting the evidence? The only way that would work is if you filed a case, a neutral investigator from the court investigated your claim, and the judge ruled on what the investigator found.
Otherwise, the court has to base its decision on the evidence provided. If only half the evidence is provided, unfortunately the decision must be made off that evidence.
IMO, the default judgement is the best solution. It is fairly easy to get a default judgement overturned if you truly want to or believe that it is wrong. Otherwise, you are admitting you owe the amount with a default judgement. So in reality it would be like you showed up and the plaintiff proved you owed the debt. Either way you have to pay.
- talmand 10y agoI believe somewhere in there the judges have the ability to ask questions and determine things on their own despite what either party wants or desires. It's the whole point in having a judge. If everything could be decided solely on evidence presented without question then people are not required for most cases, just an elaborate evidence decision tree is needed.
- jeffmould 10y agoCompletely agree. However, when only one party is there to answer questions, the judge is left with whether to believe or not believe what the plaintiff is saying. If that is the case, the reverse would also have to apply. Currently if the plaintiff doesn't show up the case is dismissed. If only one party is required though, now the defendant is left to argue why he/she is not guilty. That doesn't work either.