Hacker News Reader

Comment by netcan | Hacker News Reader

> Just like healthcare, US justice is only for people with money.

In most times and places, this is true. Ancient times, recent history, autocracies, democracies...

Justice is expensive.

Justice, and the legal college as an ideal often specifically negates this. Equality before the law. Blind justice, etc.

That said... justice is inevitably ridden with contradiction, hypocrisy and whatnot. That's what justice is.

Degrees vary, but the structure is usually constant.

Say you are a ceo, fund manager or whatnot. You are in dispute with your employer over $10m of compensation. Your bonus, performance-based compensation.

Now imagine that you are a normie, with a dispute over $10k.

Those to legal processes are entirely dissimilar. One will have teams of lawyers, many proceedings. Completely different aspects of justice will come into play. It's a different justice.

There's no way around this.

View on HN

> There's no way around this.

I don't think that is necessarily true. But the system favors the rich and powerful, and that has been true of legal systems throughout history, which means that those with the capacity to make the system more fair are incentivized to maintain the status quo, or at least not change it too much.

> those with the capacity to make the system more fair are incentivized to maintain the status quo

Often true... but networks of incentives are subtle in how they build up. It's rarely just macro, societal-level incentives.

Anyway... one major aspect is that lawyers do law for a living. It's an industry. An industry that thrives, and has thrived since at least antiquity, by representing the interests of well paying clients.

Besides that... formal truth is expensive. It's expensive to have a procedurally validated scientific truth (eg drug testing). It's expensive to create a judicial truth via trial. Very expensive. That's why we do so little of it, even though judicial (and scientific) ideals demand quite a lot of it.

Most legal matters are settled by lawyers negotiating. Courts are a rubber stamp, and (usually) theoretical last resort. Most (vast majority) criminal convictions involve a confession. In Medieval Europe they would publicly torture convicts, obtain a confession and then hang them. These days, you can confess and serve 2 years in prison... or contest and serve 12.

Otherwise, courts could not handle the volume.

The problem here is high standards. People know about the ideals of justice. Expect justice to live up to these standards. IRL it never has. Not close. Justice is an institution of society that exists to solve problems. Often sticky, ugly problems. The ideals play a role, in keeping that institution balanced... but the ideals are not the balance.

>Justice is expensive.

Nitpick: Process is expensive. Process does not yield justice by itself. It (assuming it's crafted right) just makes the outcomes more consistent.

> Nitpick: Process is expensive. Process does not yield justice by itself. It (assuming it's crafted right) just makes the outcomes more consistent.

While I agree, and it's an important distinction, I think it's probably true conversely that the chances of justice for the average person are increased by the imposition of "good" due process.

The weasel word "good" there means that I can disagree with any specific instance, but I mean to say that I don't think process is inherently bad. Bureaucracy is definitely a bane of most of our lives, but the obvious alternative, a greased-wheels process where somebody makes decisions quickly and without significant accountability, is great only if the decision maker is on your side, and terrible otherwise.

> In most times and places, this is true.

Thankfully most of the instances of it not being true exist right now. Let's stay grounded in current reality or just agree not to discuss the topic. Saying "welp what do you expect" is downright worse than ignoring it entirely.

Where is this untrue currently?

Wherever people think their justice system hasn't failed them so completely. So, this includes many people in the developed world. Approximation of justice was always a matter of degree, not a boolean.

People think their justice system sucks or is wonderful, because the king is from their tribe. Or... when media fashion is to venerate rather than critique. Or when religious attitudes preference one or the other position.

It can (usually does) have nothing to do with how well the justice system works, or whether it favors those who can afford a good lawyer.

Anyway... name a country. Where's this country with just justice?

Small claims works (arbitration too), it should be used more. (But people somehow think that arbitration is fake, but of course ignore all the downsides of the public courts. And of course what people who have given it a few minutes of thought usually don't like is that there's no way to do class-action arbitration. But that's not set in stone.)

Sure. I didn't mean to say that justice is 100% corrupt and unavailable to normies.

I said that it is different.

In God's system (Mosaic law), they would go before the judges, plead their case, bring evidence (eg witnesses), and something would be decided. The U.S. was originally based on Jethro and Moses' method. Over time, the self-centered and godless people did to it what the Pharisees did to the other system. It was no longer about what's good or even doable for human beings.

I also like that the Biblical law, from commands to its case law, is the size of a small paperback. Much of that is redundant or case specific, too. One person could learn it in a few months of study. Whereas, there's no hope of ever knowing if you're breaking some law in this country.

> godless people did to it what the Pharisees did to the other system.

Oops, sorry about that.

Pharisee here.

Joshua and the other judges were chiefs. They lead armies, built alters, pronounced judgements and whatnot. Often advised by prophets.

Mosaic Law, the scrolls of the torah, dod not exist at this point. Not even according to the bible. This came later, during the time of kings.

The stuff quickly scribbled on rocks by The Almighty so that Rabbi Moses could go deal with that whole mess down below... it's sparse. It's got a list of things god likes to eat. A recipe you are not allowed to make.

It doesn't even tell you what to do when a Midian Schiester sells you a faulty woman. Not one word on right to representation, if you can believe it.

American' legal system is based on a mostly illiterate culture's legal tradition, form the black sea. It's very good at dealing with disputes involving fish, pillage and private property.

Also... who ya'callin godless. Get your own god. You can go back to Thor if you don't like what you got here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com