3 ms·

Honestly, aren't you underestimating your own intelligence? Plenty of things can be simplified for non professionals, but the nuance of certain topics is then

Honestly, aren't you underestimating your own intelligence? Plenty of things can be simplified for non professionals, but the nuance of certain topics is then often lost. A single word in a written law can matter a lot. No disrespect to anyone, but can an average career teacher understand the nuances of securities law? Can (s)he understand the actual difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? Some can, absolutely. Others definitely can't and are operating way out of their league. Lawyers and prosecutors are great at creating stories, but isn't what matters or not whether the law has been broken? As an example; I had a tax issue (different interpretation of a certain law) but retained an amazing tax lawyer. He was _great_. The way they juggle the story around without lying, yet drawing the line very close, is amazing. Based on personal experience, I just don't think it can work without subject experts. Amazing charismatic lawyers (or prosecutors) will be able to bend an outcome, and that is just not right.

wfo 9y ago
>No disrespect to anyone, but can an average career teacher understand the nuances of securities law? Yes they can, that's exactly the position I outlined. After a week of doing nothing but learning about securities law every teacher I've met is capable of this no problem. Teachers are perhaps a bad example here though, they are highly educated (many have masters' degrees, most have bachelors) and interested in learning. But to make your argument stronger, take a minimum wage fast food worker with a GED, yes I think they are capable as well. >Lawyers and prosecutors are great at creating stories, but isn't what matters or not whether the law has been broken? Kind of. In fact in the US legal system this is not all that matters, because the law is often vague and abstract and sometimes obviously morally wrong. The purpose of the jury is exactly this, it's a check on a cold soulless system destroying lives robotically; not only must a law be broken, but you also have to convince a group of fairly normal human beings that what you've done is horrible enough you deserve to be punished for it before you are punished. >Amazing charismatic lawyers (or prosecutors) will be able to bend an outcome, and that is just not right. I agree with you here, and this essentially means the rich get away with things the poor are punished for. This will always happen, will it not? People who are able to present a more convincing argument in their defense are less likely to be convicted in any legal system? I think things can be done to mitigate this, yes, and they start with a simpler criminal code (fewer crimes) and more equal access to legal talent, like better funded public defenders.
mcappleton 9y ago
Yeah, but judges are no better at interpreting the law many times. If you don't believe me, go read some of the decisions by americas Supreme Court. For example they said a man was black therefore no a man therefor he had no right to sue in court, which basically means no rights at all. How they missed the part about due process I don't know.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Well, that's simple. They ruled he wasn't a citizen and therefore none of that applied to him. Monstrous but internally consistent.

wfo 9y ago

>No disrespect to anyone, but can an average career teacher understand the nuances of securities law? Yes they can, that's exactly the position I outlined. After a week of doing nothing but learning about securities law every teacher I've met is capable of this no problem. Teachers are perhaps a bad example here though, they are highly educated (many have masters' degrees, most have bachelors) and interested in learning. But to make your argument stronger, take a minimum wage fast food worker with a GED, yes I think they are capable as well. >Lawyers and prosecutors are great at creating stories, but isn't what matters or not whether the law has been broken? Kind of. In fact in the US legal system this is not all that matters, because the law is often vague and abstract and sometimes obviously morally wrong. The purpose of the jury is exactly this, it's a check on a cold soulless system destroying lives robotically; not only must a law be broken, but you also have to convince a group of fairly normal human beings that what you've done is horrible enough you deserve to be punished for it before you are punished. >Amazing charismatic lawyers (or prosecutors) will be able to bend an outcome, and that is just not right. I agree with you here, and this essentially means the rich get away with things the poor are punished for. This will always happen, will it not? People who are able to present a more convincing argument in their defense are less likely to be convicted in any legal system? I think things can be done to mitigate this, yes, and they start with a simpler criminal code (fewer crimes) and more equal access to legal talent, like better funded public defenders.

mcappleton 9y ago

Yeah, but judges are no better at interpreting the law many times. If you don't believe me, go read some of the decisions by americas Supreme Court. For example they said a man was black therefore no a man therefor he had no right to sue in court, which basically means no rights at all. How they missed the part about due process I don't know.

emodendroket 9y ago
Well, that's simple. They ruled he wasn't a citizen and therefore none of that applied to him. Monstrous but internally consistent.