Yachtie
Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote:
Often someone would be hired, agreed by both contesting parties, to oversee a dispute, the judge so to speak, who's determination is, by contract, held with "force of law," meaning the rendering shall be. Could even be jury. It's not what we have today, being courts of equity. What would be the advantage of this approach? And how would the system handle criminal cases? Question for you. Would you think most criminals would prefer what we have or a private court? Severity of the crime must be taken into account. I know people who have been injured, got court ordered restitution, and never see a dime. Others, who harmed no one or property, i.e. had a bag of weed, got jail time. The advantage is that the parties contesting pay for the court. The cost could be but a stipend, like the fee one gets paid for being a juror. Nominal. No need for the trappings of what we have today. Could be held in the town square, in public. Get a trained counselor, do it yourself, or ask your friend. Your choice. Of course, one would have to get down to brass tacks concerning such as murder, rape, etc. Personally, I think the courts coddle such.
< Message edited by Yachtie -- 10/2/2013 12:17:26 PM >
_____________________________
“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell
|