Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Lawyers and the economy.

Greyparrot
Posts: 14,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 6:23:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you guys think that lawyers provide more efficient oversight over fraudulent business contracts and other abuses of the worker than government appointees?

It is my contention that it is much much harder to buy off every lawyer (thousands of them) than it is to buy off a few politicians.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:42:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.

I think the government should foot the bill, not the prosecutor. Maybe unless there was some kind of serious error on the part of the prosecutor.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:43:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:42:50 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.

I think the government should foot the bill, not the prosecutor. Maybe unless there was some kind of serious error on the part of the prosecutor.

Why should taxpayers fund frivolous or nonsensical lawsuits?
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:46:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:43:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:42:50 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.

I think the government should foot the bill, not the prosecutor. Maybe unless there was some kind of serious error on the part of the prosecutor.

Why should taxpayers fund frivolous or nonsensical lawsuits?

I second this question. Collective responsibility for frivolous lawsuits wont discourage them in the least..

The British system seem pretty reasonable, and if there is a consequence to bringing nonsensical lawsuits they will naturally decrease...
Debate.org Moderator
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:46:40 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:43:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:42:50 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.

I think the government should foot the bill, not the prosecutor. Maybe unless there was some kind of serious error on the part of the prosecutor.

Why should taxpayers fund frivolous or nonsensical lawsuits?

I second this question. Collective responsibility for frivolous lawsuits wont discourage them in the least..

The British system seem pretty reasonable, and if there is a consequence to bringing nonsensical lawsuits they will naturally decrease...

Because, unless the English law system is completely different, prosecutors work for the government. I don't find it right to make the prosecutor foot the bill for a failed case that my not be his or hers fault. There are way to many factors in a criminal case to make the prosecutor solely liable for the lawyer fees.

BTW, my argument assumes that we have similar legal structures to England.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:50:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:46:40 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:43:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:42:50 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.

I think the government should foot the bill, not the prosecutor. Maybe unless there was some kind of serious error on the part of the prosecutor.

Why should taxpayers fund frivolous or nonsensical lawsuits?

I second this question. Collective responsibility for frivolous lawsuits wont discourage them in the least..

The British system seem pretty reasonable, and if there is a consequence to bringing nonsensical lawsuits they will naturally decrease...

And if people stop being awarded ridiculous amounts of money for nonsensical lawsuits they will decrease as well!
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:51:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:50:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:46:40 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:43:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:42:50 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.

I think the government should foot the bill, not the prosecutor. Maybe unless there was some kind of serious error on the part of the prosecutor.

Why should taxpayers fund frivolous or nonsensical lawsuits?

I second this question. Collective responsibility for frivolous lawsuits wont discourage them in the least..

The British system seem pretty reasonable, and if there is a consequence to bringing nonsensical lawsuits they will naturally decrease...

And if people stop being awarded ridiculous amounts of money for nonsensical lawsuits they will decrease as well!

That is greatly needed...
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 9:54:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:50:25 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:46:40 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:43:59 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:42:50 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
At 5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.

I think the government should foot the bill, not the prosecutor. Maybe unless there was some kind of serious error on the part of the prosecutor.

Why should taxpayers fund frivolous or nonsensical lawsuits?

I second this question. Collective responsibility for frivolous lawsuits wont discourage them in the least..

The British system seem pretty reasonable, and if there is a consequence to bringing nonsensical lawsuits they will naturally decrease...

And if people stop being awarded ridiculous amounts of money for nonsensical lawsuits they will decrease as well!

I don't see a lot of awards being given out for nonsensical lawsuits. But if there were no payoffs for suing in general, they would certainly decrease. However the checks of liability would be negated if legit lawsuits didn't pay off a sum that was feared by those responsible.
Debate.org Moderator
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:06:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you guys think that lawyers provide more efficient oversight over fraudulent business contracts and other abuses of the worker

Other.
What other abuses of the worker? If you're just working with well-defined things that it makes sense to ban, like fraud, then yes, because a lawyer won't waste their time on nonsense. A system in which executive employees take more of a role than courts is a system that enables the execution of far less well-defined rules that cause all sorts of damages to third parties for little discernable reason.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 10:09:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 6:23:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Do you guys think that lawyers provide more efficient oversight over fraudulent business contracts and other abuses of the worker than government appointees?

It is my contention that it is much much harder to buy off every lawyer (thousands of them) than it is to buy off a few politicians.

More lawyers are almost never a solution to a problem, but rather the root of most problems. A fair amount of government appointees are in fact lawyers.
TheOrator
Posts: 172
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2012 12:37:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 9:20:45 PM, darkkermit wrote:
No. The lawyer purpose is to profit off lawsuits whether the law and past precedent is just or not. Even If the lawyer does not have a good case, it will still cost the defendant a ton of money.

I like the british system in which If the prosecutor loses, he/she has to pay the defendant's expense.

That seems like a pretty legit system
My legend begins in the 12th century