Re: And I'm back...

I think what they were trying to get at is the disparity of power between the 
affluent, (including corporate america), and the average citizen.  At least 
that's how I took and agree with it along those lines.  If you are screwed over 
by a mortgage company, bank, telecom company, cable company, etc. you really 
don't have much recourse in our courts because you can't afford to go to court, 
and those entities know that full well.  In that sense the average american is 
without any redress of grievances when it comes to many, if not most, of the 
things that really affect our daily lives. 


I suppose I was taking the article as more evidence of this country going 
towards corporatism vs the individual.  


As I think more about you may be right, though.  The things that are being 
criminalized, the militarization of the police force and the eroding of 4th 
amendment protections are serious problems with our criminal justice system, 
although the article doesn't directly mention them.  And again in those 
situations there are two standards one for the average Americans and one for the 
rich/powerful.  

 

Mike F.






________________________________
From: Karl Swenson <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 4:14:45 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] And I'm back...


Yea, I see that for sure. 
 
But still, the most court experience the poor have in the civil arena is divorce 
court, and while I know in Washington and California there are very dedicated 
programs to grant access and assist low income, the process is still ugly and 
hard to deal with.
 
Is this article ignoring the fact that most people’s experiences are likely 
being evaluated in that area as opposed to small claims?  Or did it separate 
that somewhere?
 
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Mike Findlay
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 2:08 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] And I'm back...
 
I disagree.  I see the references to it, but saying that we receive a decent 
grade on due process but not on impartiality, etc. is oxymoronic.  


Sentences like this:

"Accessibility includes general awareness of available remedies, availability 
and affordability of legal advice and representation, and absence of excessive 
or unreasonable fees, procedural hurdles, and other barriers to access the 
formal dispute resolution systems. Access to justice also requires fair and 
effective enforcement of the decisions."

are irrelevant, for the most part, to our criminal justice system.  But all of 
them are very relevant to settling civil claims/disputes.

Mike F.  
 

________________________________

From:Karl Swenson <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 3:53:07 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] And I'm back...
Sorry to nit pick but the later part of the article mentions criminal several 
times as well as the mentioning of the US’s ratings on criminal justice.  And 
really, everything they discuss likely relates better to the low income on a 
criminal basis.
 
 
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Mike Findlay
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:21 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] And I'm back...
 
No.  This is about access to civil courts to redress grievances/disputes, etc.

Mike F. 
 

________________________________

From:Karl Swenson <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 3:09:35 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] And I'm back...
The entire last half openly addresses criminal justice doesn’t it?
 
 
 
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Mike Findlay
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:58 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] And I'm back...
 
No, its talking about civil courts/law.  Criminal courts aren't "inaccessible" 
to anyone, although a lot of defendants probably wish they were.

Mike F.  
 

________________________________

From:Karl Swenson <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 2:55:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] And I'm back...
Seems like the article is combining criminal and civil justice.
 
From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of 
Mike Findlay
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 12:47 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] And I'm back...
 
I just tried sending the text of it but I keep getting a connection error 
message.  Appears the author is an editor at Huffpo.  I got to it from another 
page although I'm drawing a blank on which one.
Why haven't more Americans successfully sued the banks that lured them into 
fraudulent mortgages, then foreclosed on them without the required paperwork?
It could be because the civil justice system in this country is essentially 
inaccessible to many Americans -- and when it does get accessed, is tilted 
toward the wealthy and moneyed interests. 

That's certainly consistent with the finding of a world-wide survey unveiled 
Thursday morning that ranks the United States lowest among 11 developed nations 
when it comes to providing access to justice to its citizens -- and lower than 
some third-world nations in some categories.
Particularly when it comes to access to and affordability of legal counsel in 
civil disputes, the U.S. ranks 20 out of the 35 nations surveyed, below not only 
developed nations but also such countries as Mexico, Croatia and the Dominican 
Republic.
The results are from the World Justice Project's new "Rule of Law Index", which 
assesses how laws are implemented and enforced in practice around the globe. 
Countries are rated on such factors as whether government officials are 
accountable, whether legal institutions protect fundamental rights, and how 
ordinary people fare in the system. The index will expand from 35 countries to 
70 next year.
The lowest-ranking countries in this year's survey included Liberia, Kenya, 
Nigeria and Pakistan.
The U.S. didn't lead the world on any of the rule-of-law measures, ranking near 
the bottom of the developed world on most -- including even fundamental rights. 
But the most striking findings related to access to justice for ordinary people. 

As part of its fact-finding, the organization polled 1,000 people in New York, 
Chicago and Los Angeles, and found a significant gap between the rich and the 
poor in terms of their use and satisfaction with the civil courts system. 
According to a news release:
For instance, only 40% of low-income respondents who used the court system in 
the past three years reported that the process was fair, compared to 71% of 
wealthy respondents. This 31% gap between poor and rich litigants in the USA is 
the widest among all developed countries sampled. In France this gap is only 5%, 
in South Korea it is 4% and in Spain it is nonexistent.
Juan Botero, the index's director, told the Huffington Post that the U.S.'s poor 
ranking on access to justice "is a little bit surprising" considering that our 
society is so prone to litigation, and so fascinated by TV shows about law and 
order. But he said the index simply quantifies what was already the consensus 
among legal experts: That when it comes to access to justice, "the U.S. could do 
a better job, especially with marginalized communities." 

Indeed, the index's findings are consistent with previous studies of access to 
justice by lower-income people. The Legal Services Corporation reported last 
year that state-level studies had concluded that less than one in five of the 
legal problems experienced by low-income people are addressed with help from 
either a private or legal-aid lawyer.
Unequal access to the legal system is also a problem that the Obama 
administration has publicly acknowledged and is trying to address. 

In March, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed prominent Harvard Law Professor 
Larry Tribe to serve as a senior counselor in charge of a new Access to Justice 
Initiative. His goal is to work with judges and lawyers across the country to 
find ways to help people who cannot afford a lawyer.
As Tribe himself put it in a June speech:
The truth is that as a nation, we face nothing short of a justice crisis. It is 
a crisis both acute and chronic, affecting not only the poor but the middle 
class. The situation we face is unconscionable. It's why the President and the 
Attorney General created the Access to Justice initiative that I am leading, and 
it's why we won't rest until we have made measurable and sustainable progress, 
but to make that progress and to do it across the board, we have got to first 
acknowledge that what we do know is far outweighed by what we don't know.
Botero said the index is not intended to be prescriptive. "The index doesn't 
give you a complete recipe for action; it doesn't even give you a full 
diagnosis. It's like a thermometer," he said.
Nevertheless, he noted that many other countries have more robust mechanisms to 
provide legal assistance to the poor. 

For instance, in many Latin American countries, law students spend their final 
year of law school serving the poor. Or in Japan, many disputes are adjudicated 
by administrative bodies. In the U.S., he said, small claims court works very 
well. "However, the scope of coverage is limited." The result: "There seems to 
be a gap in the system."
The U.S. criminal justice system received a mixed grade in the new index, 
ranking well when it comes to guaranteeing due process of law, but ranking last 
among developed nations on delivering impartial justice.
How exactly does the index define access to justice? The report states:
In a nutshell, these factors measure whether regular citizens can peacefully and 
effectively resolve their personal grievances in accordance with generally 
accepted social norms, rather than resorting to violence or self-help. 

>
>For civil and informal justice, this implies a service that is affordable, 
>effective, impartial, and culturally competent. For criminal justice, this 
>implies a system capable of investigating and adjudicating criminal offences 
>impartially and effectively, while ensuring that the rights of suspects and 
>victims are protected.
>Impartiality includes absence of arbitrary or irrational distinctions based on 
>social or economic status, and other forms of bias, as well as decisions that 
>are free of improper influence by public officials or private interests. 
>Accessibility includes general awareness of available remedies, availability and 
>affordability of legal advice and representation, and absence of excessive or 
>unreasonable fees, procedural hurdles, and other barriers to access the formal 
>dispute resolution systems. Access to justice also requires fair and effective 
>enforcement of the decisions.
And why is all this important? The report explains:
Establishing the rule of law is fundamental to achieving communities of 
opportunity and equity--communities that offer sustainable economic development, 
accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights.
 
*************************
Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post. You can 
send him an e-mail, bookmark his page; subscribe to RSS feed, follow him on 
Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get e-mail alerts when 
he writes.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot