>People are assumng something that I can't assume, which is that in a
>transparent, surveillanced society that courts would exist in the way they
>I think they'd be nearly obsolete.
>If every act was archived, every action known by all, prosecutors, lawyers
>and judges would have to go the way of the dodo.For this reason alone, it
>couldn't happen, since lawyers need jobs as much as criminals do.
Lawyers may need jobs. But they don't have to be litigators. Litigation
lawyers are IMO probably *the* single biggest drain on the economy ever
invented. I agree that *complete* transparency would probably largely spell
the end of litigation as we know it, and in turn would be the end of the
great majority of litigation lawyers. Lawyers, though, will still be needed
as long as there are so many laws on the books that the average person
cannot stay abreast of those which impact them. We will need to consult
with them for everything from tax advice, estate planning, pre-marital
arrangements and contract negotiation. But transparency, if for no other
reason, will be well worth it for doing away with litigation.
"I like dreams of the future better than the history of the past"
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:29 MDT