SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Original URL: http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-recommends-online-court-without-lawyers/
[...] You're in a dispute over money. It's not a vast amount of money, but sometimes it's precisely these sorts of disputes that incite the highest emotions.
You feel cheated, robbed.
But then you have to hire a lawyer to defend you. Which is a cost and guarantees you nothing.
So Lord Justice Briggs, a senior British judge, has come up with a new solution: an online court for civil cases featuring claims of less than £25,000 (around $32,850).
This online court is part of his recommendations for reforming the British justice system. Yes, the one that Brits are always telling you is perfect.
The idea is that there would be user-friendly rules and that lawyers would be largely, or even entirely, superfluous.
There's another characteristic of an online court that moves the judge. He says it would be "less adversarial, more investigative."
Perhaps the lord justice has yet to acquaint himself with the interpersonal and expository skills of many who frequent Twitter and other internet forums.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday August 01 2016, @05:28PM
If an online argument changes my mind, the effect is not usually immediate unless I am clearly wrong.
But, I do a lot of introspection, so I may be weird.
I recall a USENET argument I participated in back in the day. I was like: "I need more information, and will have to get back to you." Never did. I don't even recall the exact subject.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday August 01 2016, @07:07PM
Agreed, slowly over time my positions have changed, But just as often I've found the popular line of reasoning NOT convincing over time, even when I agreed with it initially. (Full disclosure: I'm actually starting to LIKE systemd. The Horrors!)
Of course that's not useful in a legal adversarial situation, where you are likely to be rewarded or punished in a short sharp shock.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.