Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 22, 1995 TAG: 9511220026
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JEFFREY A. FLEISCHHAUER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Of course, we could eliminate "trials" in our system of justice. I understand that the former Soviet Union did exactly that. The statistics reported by them showed that there were very few disputes in the Soviet Union. I am sure that if we abolish "trials" in this country, there will be a similar precipitous drop in disputes in this country.
Perhaps it is not the "trial" aspect which seems so out of favor of late, but just how juries operate. Of course, many countries do not have a jury system. I understand that in Italy, trial is conducted only by judges, and in an amazing stroke of efficiency, the accused can be tried and sentenced in his total absence! Think of how this would clear many of our crowded dockets.
The former Soviet bloc used a similar system, but called the judge a "citizen judge," even though the qualifications for appointment as a "citizen judge" had more to do with membership in a certain political party than judicial ability or legal training. I also understand that there was a lot less debate about the accuracy of the evidence being presented in this system.
Of course, under such a system, it would pay to get to know the court personnel well, to avoid tragic results. It certainly could be viewed as a pernicious idea to be judged by one's peers or ordinary citizens, when a well-connected judge or citizen judge could do all of the judging.
A lot of doctors, businessmen and others who so complain about jury duty would be spared the dreadful duty of sitting in judgment of their fellow citizens.
Perhaps what are really out of favor in the public mind are lawyers. I am starting to agree that perhaps the best thing is to abolish all lawyers. Based upon this revolutionary concept, I think most citizens would prefer to go to court ignorant of the law, with no one to advise them about what the law says.
Or perhaps it is that darn concept of legal precedent that confuses matters. It perhaps would be better for people to go to court with no way to predict what the outcome might be, since legal precedent would not bind the judge. He could decide what he wanted, changing his mind from day to day, according to who was before him, or how he happened to feel that day. This would be a vast improvement.
Other confusing rules, such as rules of evidence or civil procedure, could be done away with, so that citizens could present rumors and innuendoes and "what she said he said about his uncle's desire to not pay." Imagine the entertaining evidence that could be presented. The television stations would not have to pay for programming, since "trials" (oops, I used that darn word again), would be so amusing.
Of course, "trial by ambush" would be popular, as it was in the Old West.
Actually, it can get tiring to try to help people who are injured in accidents with drunken drivers with no automobile insurance, or who are being cheated by unscrupulous builders who build shoddy homes; and honest businessmen who are taken advantage of by people who sell counterfeit goods or obtain goods with bounced checks and false financial statements; and banks that are subjected to credit card fraud by people who, knowing they will go bankrupt, incur large charges that they try to avoid paying.
I think folks should just get used to it.
Jeffrey A. Fleischhauer is a lawyer in Roanoke.
by CNB