They say it's public safety, but it so that they can control people through their lawyers, and also so that they can control the evolution of law by controlling who can argue, what can be argued, and how it can be argued.
It's really a bizarre thing. It's kinda like being in a cult. There are a litany of rules that have to be followed and if you don't follow them to the T, that's your license. And not all of it is bright line btw, and some of it is downright fucked. A lot of lawyers are egotistical about being lawyers, so they become the ultimate cultist, and will justify it at every turn.
I get why a lawyer should get his licensed yanked of he embezzles his clients money, but making us snitch on each other or controlling speech in out of court advocacy is bullshit. If the client can say it as a pro per, why can't I? (I get in court speech and decorum, but that also applies to pro pers).
@Awoo It's a grift to push would-be lawyers into law school and keep out unwanted people who would show how bullshit and wicked the JEWdicial system actually is.
@SuperSnekFriend@Awoo THe adversarial system, instead of the inquisitorial system, demands lawyers and disempowers the court to render judgement based upon facts instead of procedure.
@SuperSnekFriend@Awoo Imagine an inquisitional jury trial where the jury, judge as well as the prosecution and defense pick apart bs evidence and arguments instead of only people who have a vested interest (lawyers) to play nice and not possibly ruin their career.
@wgiwf@Awoo >Inquisition
>OY VEY GOYIM! Don't do that. You don't want to be tortured and executed by a runaway state and church, don't you?
>(Doesn't mention that only 1000 or were executed during the inquisition, seldom if ever "tortured", and were punished for very good reasons. And such a system doesn't have to be based on the church of Rome.)
@SuperSnekFriend@Awoo The inquisitorial system of trials was actually adopted throughout most of Europe during the middle ages because of abuse of the then adversarial system in place.
It's a system where evidence or testimony is found to be true or not and less focus on statements or arguments by either side. Pair that with a jury of like 100 or more (to weed out abnormalities and bias by numbers, although only virtuous men ofc) who can expand the trial, if necessary (eg, a witness is found to be involved with the crime and is added to the defendants by will of the jury), and render judgements by various majorities depending on the severity of the crime.
@wgiwf@Awoo >adversarial system in place.
What a big mistake that was for the Anglo to adopt that from the Greeks and Romans.
>Why yes, we are more civilized and just than those early Germans who do tribal by combat with champions and swords
>Instead, we do trial by "combat" with whichever champion lawyer can out charm and out bullshit the opponent team with rhetoric and a few bits of carefully chosen, manipulated, and presented "evidence"
@wgiwf@wan@Awoo >You have been found by the Awooquisition to have been withholding affection and a marriage proposal to a cute yet lonely and sad anubis girl. Your punishment is forced marriage, and to slave away in marital bliss and nuptial pleasure as you be lovey-dovey to your anubis wife.
>Wait, what?
>Several years later:
@wan@SuperSnekFriend@wgiwf@Awoo the early inquisitional trials in america took place when the inquisition had to step in to stop spanish soldiers from skinning and burning the children of people who wouldn't pray fervently enough at church in the spanish colonies before beheading them on the town's plaza.
that happened because spanish soldiers were very religious and less than a generation before the alhambra decree took place, so many young hot blooded spaniards had the idea that killing marranos (crypto jews) was a quick way to get higher status, lands and noble titles, as such the inquisition's place on the trial was ensure that the accused was indeed practicing judaism before giving them a painfully burning to cleanse the earth from their sinful rejection of christ.
yes the spanish inquisition had to play the role of cold headed voice of reason to prevent needless executions of christians...
@SuperSnekFriend@Awoo They didn't learn the important part of the Greek system, have a large random jury with lots of power as a counterbalance to the court's tendency to serve itself in its judgments, instead of a jury that only just votes to convict or not.
Also, iirc, the Roman system didn't originally have lawyers, the practice came out of the fact that wealthy people would often hire someone to speak on their behalf, "as a friend", Cato notably doing so on at least a few occasions.
@LordMordred@wgiwf@Awoo I would love trial by physical combat to come back. It would not be just or Godly at all, but at least it would be far more entertaining than these bitchy pseudo-melodramas done by nerds that needed to be shoved in the locker one extra time, women that need to get spanked, or Jews.
Add comment