3 ms·
True, but at the same time, "Justice delayed is justice denied"[1]. An excessively slow justice system means that you need substantially more resources (money,
by foolswisdom 1y ago
True, but at the same time, "Justice delayed is justice denied"[1]. An excessively slow justice system means that you need substantially more resources (money, and time living under the uncertainty of the outcome) to deal with it, which is part of why the threat of court action against you from a large corporation (or another entity with deep pockets) is so concerning. I know someone who was in court defending against a civil suit for ten years, and the fact that someone is litigious and able to sue is a much larger threat than it should be.
Sure, there's checks and balances, and those are good, but it's ridiculous when we allow cases to drag on and then normalize it.
[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_den...>
- pc86 1y agoYes but the maxim presupposes the existence of an injured party, and that's a little different in the context of civil claims (e.g. your example of the large corporation bringing a civil suit against someone) compared to the state bringing criminal charges against a person. There are intentional roadblocks to the state bringing charges, e.g. the separation of powers I mentioned above, that don't really exist on the civil side.
- foolswisdom 1y agoIt's good that there are checks, but the core point remains that nimbleness is required for effectiveness. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm observing that the courts are slow, and that the same logic (slow is good) can indicate that is a good thing, which is why I take issue with general application of the concept without limiting context.