Chapter 1 Sample

[ Home ]

Symptoms of a Legal System Gone Crazy

"...Billy was right. Kill all the lawyers. Kill 'em tonight!"

--- line from the song: Get Over It by the Eagles, 1994

from the Hell Freezes Over music album

The Rule of Law

It is said that the hallmark of a modern civilization is the rule of law. Those societies which we consider to be the most advanced civilizations are those which are democratically governed by the "Rule of Law." In these civilizations justice is not capricious or arbitrary; it does not derive from the "divine right of kings." But rather it is democratically authorized by majority consensus of the people governed. In this context it is meant to be rational, fair, objective and just. Above all, it must be reasonable --- that is, reasonable men operating under the "Rule of Law" would overwhelmingly in the majority conclude that "such and such" behavior was or was not within the bounds of legal propriety, that it made sense, and in general helped facilitate the living of everyday life for the average citizens governed.

If the rationale, logic, and corresponding implications of the previous discussion are true; then it is an inescapable expectation that a "just society" is a "reasonable" society. More explicitly, we would expect that "just laws" are "reasonable" , at least according to the commonly held perceptions of a majority of those citizens governed.

Such laws have to make sense to the common man. They have to be readily understood and agreed upon by most members of the society. These laws and the legal system they represent, have to present a reasonable reflection of the necessary match between legal constraints and the realities and exigencies of everyday living.

This assumes that legal outcomes should reinforce and support, indeed facilitate, meeting and dealing with the realities of everyday life in America today. Our laws should facilitate social interaction, and enable realistic living in a democratic, majority-rules, pluralistic society. These laws must be perceived as both reasonable and workable. Overall, they must inevitably lead to beneficial and desirable outcomes for the most members of society in a fair and just way.

Our laws and their legal implementation should indeed regulate individuals in society. But at one and the same time their facilitative effects must be perceived by the majority of societal members to be "helpful" and "good" for the society, in general.

If these seemingly common-sense precepts are to be taken as fundamentally sound, characterizing the mark of a great civilized society which functions under the democratic rule of law; then we should be able to cite modern-day examples which would either support and confirm, or refute and deny them. And to the extent our examples do so, we should be able to arrive at the ability to make a qualitative judgement as to whether our legal system is seriously broken or not.

It is my contention that the current practice of law in America, current recent legal decisions, and our currently accepted ideas of "good lawyering" are seriously out of touch with reality, and indeed have the country in dire straits. That upon close examination, we will find that many if not most of our current legal practices, and ideas of legal jurisprudence are indeed not prudent, not reasonable, not beneficial, and not helpful or facilitative to the goals of the great majority of persons in our democratic society. They don't help us live better, or get along better in society. Indeed, they are not reasonable to most members of society , their legal outcomes and consequences don't make sense to 95% of the individual members of this society.

Oh sure, there will always be the 5% lunatic fringe that cannot tell the difference between good and bad law, legal decisions and outcomes; but for the most part probably 95%, the vast great majority of Americans, would readily agree that practically all of the legal decision examples about to be discussed in this section could be characterized as stupid and ridiculous by anyone but lawyers.

We could call this the 95% S & R Rule. That is, if 95% of persons polled, interviewed, asked, or measured thought a particular legal ruling, outcome or decision was stupid and ridiculous we could invoke the 95% S & R Rule. This rule could function as a shorthand reminder to indicate to us that the ruling, outcome or decision was not reasonable; and did not help society or its members cope with the realities of their everyday lives. Those everyday life realities for Americans necessitate living and working together in harmony as a well-functioning democratic, pluralistic society in which it can be characterized: the law works for them. If indeed, as we will show, the law doesn't work for them; then we have to admit our legal system is seriously broken, in need of drastic steps for repair.

S & R Legal Nerd Example #1

On July 27, 1994 KCBS news radio in Los Angeles recounted the following legal incident. A "so-called" student from the University of Washington was reportedly suing the University because he fell out of his multi-storied campus building window while trying to "moon" some persons below.

"Mooning" is supposed to be the practice of dropping ones trousers, shorts, or underpants and showing off some naked buttocks to astonish spectators, whoever they might be. Presumably this childish prank to gain attention is supposed to be considered "cool" among some immature students and members of the younger generation.

It may or may not be "cool." But it is certainly foolish. And I think it would be safe to say that most persons would consider it to be improper behavior --- something a reasonable person should not or would not do. Yet this person who committed this ridiculous act of foolishness and accidentally hurt himself while doing so; somehow thinks it is the University's responsibility to compensate him for his stupidity. Now I ask you: Does this conform to our 95% S & R Rule?

It sure does! That is, I think that 95% of normal, regular common citizens would think this legal outcome was stupid and ridiculous. Yet somehow this student has been convinced that when a lawyer has had sufficient time and access to a jury so as to totally confuse them and the facts; that then he will prevail and be compensated by the University for his poor, unfortunate, accidental outcome.

Give me a break! Anybody but a money-hungry lawyer would think this was idiotic, and that it was the student's own stupid fault for hurting himself. Oh this poor, downtrodden victim is obviously maligned and misunderstood by the University. [Gee, I guess they should jump at the chance to compensate him].

S & R Legal Nerd Example #2

Then there's the case of the "fat person" who is suing the movie theater company for discrimination against fat people. A KCBS News radio account on 2/24/94 told us that this fat woman was suing because the seats that were provided at the movie theater for the audience were too narrow for her to sit in. And therefore, since the theater did not provide extra-wide seats for fat persons, like her, the theater was responsible for discrimination.

This story was further elaborated and confirmed by the Wall Street Journal on February 28, 1994. No doubt the fat woman and her attorney were heartened by the earlier statement from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) that obesity can be a disability as reported on 11/15/93 by a story in the Washington Post.

Now I ask you: Do you think that this is what anti-discrimination, or even disability laws were created for? Is this what they are supposed to do? And does this seem reasonable? Is it beneficial and helpful for society? No! But it probably helps lawyers line their pockets with money while providing them with another excuse for a whole new class of frivolous lawsuits.

Again it seems we have another clear example of the 95% S & R Rule. That is, most people would consider this legal action stupid and ridiculous (except lawyers and one fat lady, of course).

S & R Legal Nerd Example #3

Then there's the case of the 10-year-old fifth grader who was scolded by his teacher for talking and disrupting the class. Reportedly he committed suicide on 4/13/94 (apparently the day after the scolding) by returning to the school and shooting himself in the head with his father's gun.

On May 5, 1994 KCBS News radio reported that the boy's parents were suing the Los Angeles Unified School District in the wrongful death of their child. The father's attorney said that the school had ignored the youth's needs, and that the school did not properly supervise the child.

Subsequently the Los Angeles Times in their editorial section on Sunday, May 15, 1994 printed 3 letters all with negative views of the lawsuit. One letter faulted the parents for making the gun available to their son.