5 ms·

* if you have the money and the people prepared for 3)

by listsfrin 7y ago

Jommi 7y ago
This point only pertains in places with a poisonous legal system, such as US or UK.
- nerdponx 7y ago
  Serious question: is there a legal system that works better in these kinds of cases?
- wozniacki 7y ago
  Could you perhaps explain how it works in your country or other countries, in such matters? I'm not necessarily knocking any non-US or non-UK judiciaries or jurisprudence(s); in fact if anything I find US or UK systems poisonous too - as you describe it - to a high degree in some cases. But how does a modern, complex and non-homogeneous society aribiter cases without turning "poisonous" or odious to some members? To my knowledge much of Europe, M.E., Asia and even S. America are composed of largely homogeneous populaces with a smattering of outsiders at best.
  - danans 7y ago
    > But how does a modern, complex and non-homogeneous society aribiter cases without turning "poisonous" or odious to some members? There is no perfect society in this regard. Just because it's hard doesn't mean that such societies shouldn't strive to reduce the odiousness, and maximize the fairness in the administration of justice, regardless of the subgroup that the contending parties may belong to. Fair and equal treatment under the eyes of the law is a cornerstone of human rights. > To my knowledge much of Europe, M.E., Asia and even S. America are composed of largely homogeneous populaces with a smattering of outsiders at best. You've listed regions that contain some of the most heterogenous countries on earth in ethnicity, language, and culture, like the UK, France, China, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Indonesia, Brazil. Some of these countries have multiple, sometimes contradictory legal systems, some sanctioned by the state, others by religious power structures. The country that is often referred to as among the most homogeneous societies in the world, Japan, has a pretty well acknowledged dual justice system for citizens versus visitors. All societies fail at this, but if anything, the very homogeneous societies fail the most at offering equal justice.
    - wozniacki 7y ago
      I'm talking about diverse, complex and modern as in a jurisprudence that takes into account many ethnicities and still manages to produce a letter of the law that multinational corporations find agreeable to do business in and yet at the same time subjects those corps to tough penalties with an enforcement mechanism to back it up. Countries with a steady inflow of new migrants of all networths. Countries that make real attempts to be fair to native born people and outsiders alike. A country could speak 2 or 3 different languages and still a very largely monocultural way of doing things. Not to cherry pick but do you really think the Yighurs in China get a fair shake in a court? I really want to hear if you've read differently. A country could have on paper very impressive law frameworks and yet in action be essentially meaningless since most of the population doesnt have access to fair representation. Not mere grandiose legal frameworks with not an ounce of real world enforcement to back it up or go after bad actors in a legitimate way, without extra legal acts of justice or worse mob justice. Pretty much any and every country you mentioned fails to meet atleast one or - in most cases - all of the criteria.
      - danans 7y ago
        > Not to cherry pick but do you really think the Yighurs in China get a fair shake in a court? I really want to hear if you've read differently. Definitely not. Multiethnicity is necessary, but insufficient condition > Pretty much any and every country you mentioned fails to meet atleast one or - in most cases - all of the criteria. That's obvious. I didn't say they were perfect, just far from homogeneous. And there's not much to learn from very homogeneous societies in this regard. The question for the complex heterogeneous societies isn't whether they fail, but rather what direction they are moving in. Arguably both China and the US have moved backwards of late.
- rs23296008n1 7y ago
  As opposed to... where exactly? I'm sure I can point at legal systems across the globe that have examples of completely terrible injustice. Which legal system are you referring to that is significantly not "poisonous"? And why?
  - Jommi 7y ago
    Try anywhere in Northern Europe
    - rs23296008n1 7y ago
      Name one. Genuinely interested. Most legal systems are broken in some way to some extent. Unfair cases exist because people aren't perfect, make mistakes and/or have agendas.
      - solarkraft 7y ago
        Some legal systems are less biased towards people with more money than others. I think the ones in northern Europe tend towards that, but I don't have specific examples and wouldn't expect them to be totally fair either.
      - Jommi 7y ago
        Finland/Sweden. I'm not saying they perfect, or that they have no flaws. I'm saying they are not actively poisonous, such as in US. I think it's related to how weaponized the legal system in US is compared anywhere else
        pc86 7y ago
        What does "actively poisonous" mean in this context? You've used that phrase numerous times as if we should know exactly what you're referring to.
thomk 7y ago
Civil lawsuits come down to just one thing in this country: MONEY. Not the law, not what is right or who has been virtuous. Just money. Or more specifically: who has the money. If you are poor and you sue someone who is rich, they control that outcome. If you are rich and you sue someone who is poor, they (by default) control that outcome; there's nothing there. If you are both poor, a judge will often decide based who looks and sounds the less poor. If you are both rich, then (the equivalent of) actuaries decide the outcome. Criminal lawsuits are similar. I do not care how much you fuck up in this country; The amount of time you spend in jail will be inversely proportional to the amount of money you can spend to fight it.
- jeremyvisser 7y ago
  Considering you're commenting in an international forum, what is "this country"?
  - dean177 7y ago
    Clearly the USA. What point are you trying to make?
  - smnrchrds 7y ago
    It is supposed to be an international forum, but in practice it is a local group for San Francisco Bay Area. Consider how often articles about housing issues in Bay Area make it to the front page, compared to Vancouver, London, and Tokyo. HN is international in the sense that anyone can access and participate in it. But in practice, mostly SF Bay Area residents do.
    - yellowapple 7y ago
      For those downvoting this comment: this conclusion (that HN's reader base is predominantly based in the SF Bay Area) should be entirely unsurprising given that HN is itself the product of Y Combinator, an accelerator based in the SF Bay Area that (last I checked, and from what I recall back when I worked for a startup that applied) specifically requires its incubatees to relocate (if they're not already there) to the SF Bay Area during said incubation. Yes, not all of us are in the SF Bay Area, but it's pretty reasonable to assume that most readers are.

* if you have the money and the people prepared for 3)

Jommi 7y ago

This point only pertains in places with a poisonous legal system, such as US or UK.

nerdponx 7y ago
Serious question: is there a legal system that works better in these kinds of cases?
wozniacki 7y ago
Could you perhaps explain how it works in your country or other countries, in such matters? I'm not necessarily knocking any non-US or non-UK judiciaries or jurisprudence(s); in fact if anything I find US or UK systems poisonous too - as you describe it - to a high degree in some cases. But how does a modern, complex and non-homogeneous society aribiter cases without turning "poisonous" or odious to some members? To my knowledge much of Europe, M.E., Asia and even S. America are composed of largely homogeneous populaces with a smattering of outsiders at best.
- danans 7y ago
  > But how does a modern, complex and non-homogeneous society aribiter cases without turning "poisonous" or odious to some members? There is no perfect society in this regard. Just because it's hard doesn't mean that such societies shouldn't strive to reduce the odiousness, and maximize the fairness in the administration of justice, regardless of the subgroup that the contending parties may belong to. Fair and equal treatment under the eyes of the law is a cornerstone of human rights. > To my knowledge much of Europe, M.E., Asia and even S. America are composed of largely homogeneous populaces with a smattering of outsiders at best. You've listed regions that contain some of the most heterogenous countries on earth in ethnicity, language, and culture, like the UK, France, China, India, Iraq, Lebanon, Indonesia, Brazil. Some of these countries have multiple, sometimes contradictory legal systems, some sanctioned by the state, others by religious power structures. The country that is often referred to as among the most homogeneous societies in the world, Japan, has a pretty well acknowledged dual justice system for citizens versus visitors. All societies fail at this, but if anything, the very homogeneous societies fail the most at offering equal justice.
  - wozniacki 7y ago
    I'm talking about diverse, complex and modern as in a jurisprudence that takes into account many ethnicities and still manages to produce a letter of the law that multinational corporations find agreeable to do business in and yet at the same time subjects those corps to tough penalties with an enforcement mechanism to back it up. Countries with a steady inflow of new migrants of all networths. Countries that make real attempts to be fair to native born people and outsiders alike. A country could speak 2 or 3 different languages and still a very largely monocultural way of doing things. Not to cherry pick but do you really think the Yighurs in China get a fair shake in a court? I really want to hear if you've read differently. A country could have on paper very impressive law frameworks and yet in action be essentially meaningless since most of the population doesnt have access to fair representation. Not mere grandiose legal frameworks with not an ounce of real world enforcement to back it up or go after bad actors in a legitimate way, without extra legal acts of justice or worse mob justice. Pretty much any and every country you mentioned fails to meet atleast one or - in most cases - all of the criteria.
    - danans 7y ago
      > Not to cherry pick but do you really think the Yighurs in China get a fair shake in a court? I really want to hear if you've read differently. Definitely not. Multiethnicity is necessary, but insufficient condition > Pretty much any and every country you mentioned fails to meet atleast one or - in most cases - all of the criteria. That's obvious. I didn't say they were perfect, just far from homogeneous. And there's not much to learn from very homogeneous societies in this regard. The question for the complex heterogeneous societies isn't whether they fail, but rather what direction they are moving in. Arguably both China and the US have moved backwards of late.
rs23296008n1 7y ago
As opposed to... where exactly? I'm sure I can point at legal systems across the globe that have examples of completely terrible injustice. Which legal system are you referring to that is significantly not "poisonous"? And why?
- Jommi 7y ago
  Try anywhere in Northern Europe
  - rs23296008n1 7y ago
    Name one. Genuinely interested. Most legal systems are broken in some way to some extent. Unfair cases exist because people aren't perfect, make mistakes and/or have agendas.
    - solarkraft 7y ago
      Some legal systems are less biased towards people with more money than others. I think the ones in northern Europe tend towards that, but I don't have specific examples and wouldn't expect them to be totally fair either.
    - Jommi 7y ago
      Finland/Sweden. I'm not saying they perfect, or that they have no flaws. I'm saying they are not actively poisonous, such as in US. I think it's related to how weaponized the legal system in US is compared anywhere else
      - pc86 7y ago
        What does "actively poisonous" mean in this context? You've used that phrase numerous times as if we should know exactly what you're referring to.

thomk 7y ago

Civil lawsuits come down to just one thing in this country: MONEY. Not the law, not what is right or who has been virtuous. Just money. Or more specifically: who has the money. If you are poor and you sue someone who is rich, they control that outcome. If you are rich and you sue someone who is poor, they (by default) control that outcome; there's nothing there. If you are both poor, a judge will often decide based who looks and sounds the less poor. If you are both rich, then (the equivalent of) actuaries decide the outcome. Criminal lawsuits are similar. I do not care how much you fuck up in this country; The amount of time you spend in jail will be inversely proportional to the amount of money you can spend to fight it.

jeremyvisser 7y ago
Considering you're commenting in an international forum, what is "this country"?
- dean177 7y ago
  Clearly the USA. What point are you trying to make?
- smnrchrds 7y ago
  It is supposed to be an international forum, but in practice it is a local group for San Francisco Bay Area. Consider how often articles about housing issues in Bay Area make it to the front page, compared to Vancouver, London, and Tokyo. HN is international in the sense that anyone can access and participate in it. But in practice, mostly SF Bay Area residents do.
  - yellowapple 7y ago
    For those downvoting this comment: this conclusion (that HN's reader base is predominantly based in the SF Bay Area) should be entirely unsurprising given that HN is itself the product of Y Combinator, an accelerator based in the SF Bay Area that (last I checked, and from what I recall back when I worked for a startup that applied) specifically requires its incubatees to relocate (if they're not already there) to the SF Bay Area during said incubation. Yes, not all of us are in the SF Bay Area, but it's pretty reasonable to assume that most readers are.