4 ms·

There was a time when "normal people" had better access to justice - the fact that you even need to ask this question should cause... ...you to realize that yo

There was a time when "normal people" had better access to justice - the fact that you even need to ask this question should cause... ...you to realize that your propositions are not accepted uncritically and you should support them with evidence.

ABCLAW 9y ago
This seems so open ended so as to be fruitless - We aren't going to peruse 300 page UNDP or 50 page CBA methodological reports to define the issue, then jump into the data sets themselves on this forum. But they exist, and they're easy to search for if you want to satisfy yourself. This just isn't the place, nor is that the point of the assertion. If you have a particular observation or set of data which contradicts what I'm saying maybe I can be more helpful.
- TulliusCicero 9y ago
  Are you serious? If you're making the assertion here, it's on you to support it. Don't try to put the burden on others to disprove something you've shown zero evidence for, that's ridiculous.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Entirely. The burden is placed upon the objector to have even a passing argument against the initially held position, otherwise you can raise infinite substance-less objections against an otherwise strong point and 'win'. This tactic is used in court and in point-based debate systems to game the system (in the first to drive up expenses, and in the second to score uncontested points). The bar doesn't need to be high, but at least something needs to be offered as a counterpoint beyond someone telling an expert in their own field that they don't believe them. It helps to establish that the counterargument is made in good faith and requires effort on the part of the objector, indicating that they have some skin in the game.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - TulliusCicero 9y ago
      That's not how debate works. The initial burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, you're just shoving off your responsibility onto others. You complain about substance-less objections, but so far you've just made a substance-less assertion. It's hypocritical.
      - ABCLAW 9y ago
        1) It isn't hypocritical to ask someone to articulate why they don't agree with an assertion. 2) No, that's NOT how the burden of proof works. The initial presumption is that the moving party is speaking truthfully, and objections are raised afterwards. If the objection has enough proof, then the initial party is under the burden to refute the defense. This is literally how our court systems work in civil cases. The alternate assumption, that every element of every statement needs to be laid out for any statement to be found to be valuable means that every post here would start with a discussion of epistemology. Edit: torstenvl's post is incorrect - in the initial stages of dispute resolution, in summary judgment and the phases where the claims are evaluated for importance (whether the originating document should be struck, etc.), the claims as drafted in a statement of claim are assumed to be true. This is why default judgment is accepted - because the pleas are accepted truthful. Pleas are also evaluated as if they are true in summary judgment and a number of other pre-trial levels. Once a defense is filed and objection is noted does the burden switch and the evidentiary examination begins. But that requires a defense, and a defense will be struck if it says nothing. Fortunately, this procedure lines up fairly well with Bayesian inference and the principle of charity. In any event, this meta discussion seems to have generated ill will and little understanding, so I'll let it rest where it lies. Thanks for the spell-check! Common error of mine.
      - torstenvl 9y ago
        I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat with ABCLAW, but for the edification of readers who might otherwise be inclined to believe the assertion in the sibling comment, it is NOT on the objector to provide evidence. The moving party bears the burden of proof. Sometimes the initial burden of proof is merely prima facie evidence, after which the burden shifts. For example, in some states, a defendant in a murder case need only make a prima facie case that the killing was done in self-defense, after which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense. But even in that case, the initial moving party bears the initial burden of proof. Also, ABCLAW: it's spelled "judgment."
- mcguire 9y ago
  "If you have a particular observation or set of data which contradicts what I'm saying maybe I can be more helpful." I remember hearing once that 1948 was the first year in the United States without a lynching. http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-120/Crime-Punishment-in-Medieval-England.aspx http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-120/Crime-Punish... https://carolashby.com/crime-and-punishment-in-the-roman-empire/ https://carolashby.com/crime-and-punishment-in-the-roman-emp...
Nomentatus 9y ago
Costs, start there. In Rome, you'd have a better chance to seek justice if poor (if a citizen, and most people weren't.) But you'd have been better off decades ago as what counts as "small claims" has been totally trashed by inflation.
- torstenvl 9y ago
  The most readily available state historical summary of small claims limits I could find is from CT, where the 1981 limit was $1,000 (approx. $2,623 in 2017 dollars) and is now $5,000. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/rpt/pdf/2017-R-0166.pdf https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/rpt/pdf/2017-R-0166.pdf In California, the small claims limit was set at $7,500 in 2005 (approx. $9,695 in 2017 dollars) and is now $10,000. http://www.personalinjury-attorney.com/california-small-claims-court-limits-rise-to-10000/ http://www.personalinjury-attorney.com/california-small-clai... Is there a jurisdiction you have in mind where the small claims limits increases have been outstripped by inflation?
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    You're right, I don't live there.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > In Rome, you'd have a better chance to seek justice if poor (if a citizen, and most people weren't.) Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say, but isn't that's equivalent to "before women's suffrage, if you were a man..." or "before the civil rights movement, if you were white..."? I find it a bit hard to see how that is an argument suggesting that things used to be better? EDIT: Wait, was that your whole point? That a woman or an ethnic minority seeking justice was much worse of a few generations ago?
webninja 9y ago
Russell’s Teapot applies here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

ABCLAW 9y ago

This seems so open ended so as to be fruitless - We aren't going to peruse 300 page UNDP or 50 page CBA methodological reports to define the issue, then jump into the data sets themselves on this forum. But they exist, and they're easy to search for if you want to satisfy yourself. This just isn't the place, nor is that the point of the assertion. If you have a particular observation or set of data which contradicts what I'm saying maybe I can be more helpful.

TulliusCicero 9y ago
Are you serious? If you're making the assertion here, it's on you to support it. Don't try to put the burden on others to disprove something you've shown zero evidence for, that's ridiculous.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  Entirely. The burden is placed upon the objector to have even a passing argument against the initially held position, otherwise you can raise infinite substance-less objections against an otherwise strong point and 'win'. This tactic is used in court and in point-based debate systems to game the system (in the first to drive up expenses, and in the second to score uncontested points). The bar doesn't need to be high, but at least something needs to be offered as a counterpoint beyond someone telling an expert in their own field that they don't believe them. It helps to establish that the counterargument is made in good faith and requires effort on the part of the objector, indicating that they have some skin in the game.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - TulliusCicero 9y ago
    That's not how debate works. The initial burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, you're just shoving off your responsibility onto others. You complain about substance-less objections, but so far you've just made a substance-less assertion. It's hypocritical.
    - ABCLAW 9y ago
      1) It isn't hypocritical to ask someone to articulate why they don't agree with an assertion. 2) No, that's NOT how the burden of proof works. The initial presumption is that the moving party is speaking truthfully, and objections are raised afterwards. If the objection has enough proof, then the initial party is under the burden to refute the defense. This is literally how our court systems work in civil cases. The alternate assumption, that every element of every statement needs to be laid out for any statement to be found to be valuable means that every post here would start with a discussion of epistemology. Edit: torstenvl's post is incorrect - in the initial stages of dispute resolution, in summary judgment and the phases where the claims are evaluated for importance (whether the originating document should be struck, etc.), the claims as drafted in a statement of claim are assumed to be true. This is why default judgment is accepted - because the pleas are accepted truthful. Pleas are also evaluated as if they are true in summary judgment and a number of other pre-trial levels. Once a defense is filed and objection is noted does the burden switch and the evidentiary examination begins. But that requires a defense, and a defense will be struck if it says nothing. Fortunately, this procedure lines up fairly well with Bayesian inference and the principle of charity. In any event, this meta discussion seems to have generated ill will and little understanding, so I'll let it rest where it lies. Thanks for the spell-check! Common error of mine.
    - torstenvl 9y ago
      I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat with ABCLAW, but for the edification of readers who might otherwise be inclined to believe the assertion in the sibling comment, it is NOT on the objector to provide evidence. The moving party bears the burden of proof. Sometimes the initial burden of proof is merely prima facie evidence, after which the burden shifts. For example, in some states, a defendant in a murder case need only make a prima facie case that the killing was done in self-defense, after which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self-defense. But even in that case, the initial moving party bears the initial burden of proof. Also, ABCLAW: it's spelled "judgment."
mcguire 9y ago
"If you have a particular observation or set of data which contradicts what I'm saying maybe I can be more helpful." I remember hearing once that 1948 was the first year in the United States without a lynching. http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-120/Crime-Punishment-in-Medieval-England.aspx http://www.duhaime.org/LawMuseum/LawArticle-120/Crime-Punish... https://carolashby.com/crime-and-punishment-in-the-roman-empire/ https://carolashby.com/crime-and-punishment-in-the-roman-emp...

Nomentatus 9y ago

Costs, start there. In Rome, you'd have a better chance to seek justice if poor (if a citizen, and most people weren't.) But you'd have been better off decades ago as what counts as "small claims" has been totally trashed by inflation.

torstenvl 9y ago
The most readily available state historical summary of small claims limits I could find is from CT, where the 1981 limit was $1,000 (approx. $2,623 in 2017 dollars) and is now $5,000. https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/rpt/pdf/2017-R-0166.pdf https://www.cga.ct.gov/2017/rpt/pdf/2017-R-0166.pdf In California, the small claims limit was set at $7,500 in 2005 (approx. $9,695 in 2017 dollars) and is now $10,000. http://www.personalinjury-attorney.com/california-small-claims-court-limits-rise-to-10000/ http://www.personalinjury-attorney.com/california-small-clai... Is there a jurisdiction you have in mind where the small claims limits increases have been outstripped by inflation?
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  You're right, I don't live there.
vanderZwan 9y ago
> In Rome, you'd have a better chance to seek justice if poor (if a citizen, and most people weren't.) Maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say, but isn't that's equivalent to "before women's suffrage, if you were a man..." or "before the civil rights movement, if you were white..."? I find it a bit hard to see how that is an argument suggesting that things used to be better? EDIT: Wait, was that your whole point? That a woman or an ethnic minority seeking justice was much worse of a few generations ago?

webninja 9y ago

Russell’s Teapot applies here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot