The whole problem with our legal "system" is the "legalese" shit gets in the way of logic and right or wrong.
Now this comment is just profoundly ignorant and I think I sign of a feeling of loss of control Legalese, is the language lawyers lawyers use to describe things accurately, just like doctors or IT people or mechanics or plumbers. When you or I might use the word "cell" a physician might use a specific word for a type of cell for accuracy. Legalese is the same thing. You might say you have been wronged, but a lawyer will need to describe the specific wrong to get you redress. IT might be a tort, it might even be a specific kind of tort. There is nothing wrong with lawyers using specific language with a specific meaning any more than it is with an IT professional specifying a type of processor being used instead of just saying "computer chip."
In fact legal language is fairly easy to master and I know some lay people who have done it quite well. But the reality is the world is getting more specialized and precision of language and meaning is important in achieving results. There is nothing anymore wrong with FAST not understanding legalize than there is with me not really understanding a lot of things my IT guys talk about.
The “system” has evolved to a self full filling entity that exists solely for its own continuation.
Now this one is just factually wrong and particularly stupid. The system is neccessary because of the real world, and does not do anything that is specifically aimed at its own continuation. The system is a dispute resolution mechanism that exists because people often come into conflict or disagreement and as a society we have decided that we don't want blood feuds or duels anymore. I do personal injury work. People get hurt out in the real world and they seek redress and assistance. Say a guy is hurt in a car crash and turns to his insurer and says, I can't work I need money to pay my bills. The insurer might say "nope, we think you can work." Thus you have a dispute and thus you need a system to resolve it. The same goes for virtually every other type of law.
IF you believe FAST, then famalies break down because divorce courts exist. Or criminals do crimes because criminal courts exist. But, as we often see, he has it ass backwards. We have divorce courts because famalies break down. We have criminal courts because society believes that some conduct should be prohibited. So the courts are a response to a set of problems in the real world, and in fact do nothing to "self fulfill."
Sorry FAST, you are just dead wrong on that count. Do you think before you post?
The “judge” should, and could be outside the legal system, with obviously, input from persons trained in law.
Do you know how the judicial system in Ontario works? Do you understand the difference between a trier of fact and a trier of law? You really think that someone who does not understand the law should administer it? Your argument is that the person with less qualifications should have the most authority. A little illogical don't you think?
The “law” isn’t always right, and shouldn’t always be the deciding factor in a dispute that could be much more complex than the laws derived from a system that has blinders on.
How often do you think disputes are resolved on purely legal grounds? Often often do you think disputes are decided on the facts? How often do you think it is a mix of the two? How many rule 21 motions do you see in Ontario in a year? I would say I see a serious issue of law deciding a case less than 5% of the time. And if you don't like a "law" you should not whine about your court system, whine about your politicians. They pass the legislation that becomes the law. In the modern world legislation is involved in almost all aspects of the law. How much lobbying have you done to change unjust laws?
You can’t tell me that decisions have been made that are COMPLETELY incorrect, illogical, and simply wrong,…simply because,…that’s what the “legal system” says has to be.
If your argument is "the system is imperfect", or judges make mistakes, or our laws are imperfect, you are right. No system is perfect, not even close. But our legal system works very well. If you actually wanted to discuss this, feel free to post some cases or laws that you think are unjust or are badly decided. Then tell us how many cases are badly decided. To be honest you don't even seem to articulate your concern in an understandable manner. You are almost incoherent on this one. When you have a complaint about a decision because you think the "legal system" has it "wrong", you don't say anything. Do you say a judge got something wrong? Do you say the legislation is unjust or poorly written? Are you saying the precedent is unjust? This particular complaint is like walking into the auto shop and saying "My car is imperfect", but not saying anything else. Virtually useless.
