Today, I just want to point out a major flaw in the U.S. child support system. I have a friend who divorced her abusive husband very shortly after getting pregnant. I am not going to bore you with the stories of the emotional abuse from him and his family during and after the birth, but I will mention that the husband was provided with DNA evidence that the child was his. Recently, some five months after the birth, he finally announced that he has no intention of paying child support (prior to this it was always "next month I will start"). She has been raising their child on a very small income with no support from the father for almost half a year, and she is currently in a very difficult financial situation as a result. Child support laws won't even give her any recourse for another month, and she is will still not see any of the money for another 2 to 3 months. This is not a unique story. There are children all over the U.S. who have been financially abandoned by their fathers, and the children and mothers have to suffer for almost a year to see any justice.
U.S. child support needs some massive revisions. First, fathers should not be paying directly to the mothers, and they should not be paying through a middle man that only forwards the payment if it is received. This is essentially the state telling mothers and children that they can just rot and die if the fathers don't pay. Six months is far too long to wait before taking action. Who deserves survival more, a deadbeat dad who abandoned his kid, or the kid who did nothing wrong?
It would only take one thing to make a huge difference: Instead of mom only getting the money if dad will pay it, the government should do the paying. The government should pay mom her child support every month, on time, and in full. Then, the government should send dad the bill. If dad does not pay, mom should not have to report him or file for recourse. In fact, she really should not even have to know. If the government wants to wait six months before garnishing wages, that should be its own business, and it should feel the sting of a light pocket book, because the government made the law, and the government can afford it much better.
Before closing, I want to avoid some misunderstandings. I realize that sometimes moms abandon their children when the fathers get custody. This applies equally to them. I presented this way, because a very vast majority of divorces find the children with the mother, while the father is ordered to pay child support.
The point here is, regardless of which parent has the child, it is beyond cruel and irresponsible to leave the financial support of the child entirely in the hands of someone who's commitment is questionable. If the government is going to order that child support be paid, the government should be responsible for enforcing that order in a way that does not cause suffering for the child. If the government is not capable of forcing all payments to be made in full and on time, it should take on the responsibility of making the payments regardless of whether the debt has been paid, and it should take sole responsibility of collecting the debt. We no longer live in an era where doing this is far too expensive to be feasible. It can and should be done, because we are not just talking about the well being of our children. We are talking about our future society. If we cannot make sure that our children do not have to suffer in poverty needlessly, our nation is going to go backwards, not forwards. Even if you are too selfish to care about this, consider who is going to care for you when you get old, when a vast majority of Americans are in poverty.
19 August 2015
17 August 2015
UFOs and Other Improbable Things
Humans in general seem to have a very stubborn skeptical streak that is often taken to an extreme. I am not just talking about UFOs. I am talking about a large range of "supernatural" claims for which there is significant supporting evidence. I am also talking about scientific claims sometimes even backed with fairly strong evidence. Humans like to reject anything that seems improbable, despite whatever evidence exists. Ironically, this extends to religion, but it can go both ways.
First I want to discuss UFOs. Personally, I am a skeptic, but I am not a militant skeptic who gets verbally abusive when people think differently. Several years ago, I watched a show on Discovery about UFO sighting and ancient evidence of alien visitors. It changed my perspective entirely. Now, I am not saying I suddenly believe in all of the alien visitor theories or anything, but I certainly don't think that everyone involved is crazy. The thing is, there are a lot of people who claim to have observed alien activity. These are not just run-of-the-mill crazies either. There are astronauts, scientists, politicians, and military leaders who claim to have observed evidence. Further, there are incidents on public record that not only have no explanation, but the records also state that those present claimed to have observed alien presence. These incidents are not only on US records either. There are recorded incidents from a range of countries, some of which had limited contact with other countries at the time. The number and consistency of the claims is staggering. Further, there is potential evidence of records of alien visits from a rather large number of ancient societies, again, with an amazing level of consistency. The consistency of the records and various evidence is far greater than even the consistency among world religions over time and distance. In short, the evidence supporting the theory that aliens have visited the Earth in the past, and may still be visiting regularly, is many times stronger than the evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ.
There are plenty of other "supernatural" theories that most people summarily dismiss without ever considering supporting evidence and lack of opposing evidence. Alternative medicine is largely dismissed because of lack of evidence that it works, but because no one has seriously tested it, the lack of evidence is practically meaningless. There is equally little evidence that it does not work. Bigfoot has still not been disproved, largely because everyone searching wants to believe. Without unbelievers getting involved, because they thing the whole thing is crazy, we cannot have evidence against it. Things that are not supernatural are subject to this problem as well. Many people don't believe that global warming is even real, despite some pretty solid evidence, largely because they don't want to believe. They cannot see the rising temperatures with their own eyes, so they call those who believe crazy. People seem to dismiss inconvenient ideas regardless of evidence, when the perceived probability is low.
Religion is affected by this problem as well. Over the last several millenia, humans have used religion to explain things that they could not otherwise explain. They attributed things they could not control to God, and sometimes they attributed things that were inconvenient for them to control to God. Now, it is getting more common for people to summarily dismiss the idea of religion, despite claims from many civilizations that, while less consistent than alien theories, still have many common threads. It is not unreasonable to be skeptical of religion and even to disbelieve in God, but it is completely unreasonable to deny any possibility that God could exist. The supporting evidence for religion may be weak, but the opposing evidence does not exist at all!
The point of all of this is that believing the evidence supporting alien visitors is more rational than believing that all of the believers are crazy people. There is no call for insulting people who are basing their beliefs on actual evidence, especially when you have no evidence that they are wrong. And, if you are religious, consider that the evidence supporting alien visitors is far stronger than the evidence supporting your religion. Personally, I remain skeptical, but I am not so deluded as to assume that anyone who believes differently is crazy.
First I want to discuss UFOs. Personally, I am a skeptic, but I am not a militant skeptic who gets verbally abusive when people think differently. Several years ago, I watched a show on Discovery about UFO sighting and ancient evidence of alien visitors. It changed my perspective entirely. Now, I am not saying I suddenly believe in all of the alien visitor theories or anything, but I certainly don't think that everyone involved is crazy. The thing is, there are a lot of people who claim to have observed alien activity. These are not just run-of-the-mill crazies either. There are astronauts, scientists, politicians, and military leaders who claim to have observed evidence. Further, there are incidents on public record that not only have no explanation, but the records also state that those present claimed to have observed alien presence. These incidents are not only on US records either. There are recorded incidents from a range of countries, some of which had limited contact with other countries at the time. The number and consistency of the claims is staggering. Further, there is potential evidence of records of alien visits from a rather large number of ancient societies, again, with an amazing level of consistency. The consistency of the records and various evidence is far greater than even the consistency among world religions over time and distance. In short, the evidence supporting the theory that aliens have visited the Earth in the past, and may still be visiting regularly, is many times stronger than the evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ.
There are plenty of other "supernatural" theories that most people summarily dismiss without ever considering supporting evidence and lack of opposing evidence. Alternative medicine is largely dismissed because of lack of evidence that it works, but because no one has seriously tested it, the lack of evidence is practically meaningless. There is equally little evidence that it does not work. Bigfoot has still not been disproved, largely because everyone searching wants to believe. Without unbelievers getting involved, because they thing the whole thing is crazy, we cannot have evidence against it. Things that are not supernatural are subject to this problem as well. Many people don't believe that global warming is even real, despite some pretty solid evidence, largely because they don't want to believe. They cannot see the rising temperatures with their own eyes, so they call those who believe crazy. People seem to dismiss inconvenient ideas regardless of evidence, when the perceived probability is low.
Religion is affected by this problem as well. Over the last several millenia, humans have used religion to explain things that they could not otherwise explain. They attributed things they could not control to God, and sometimes they attributed things that were inconvenient for them to control to God. Now, it is getting more common for people to summarily dismiss the idea of religion, despite claims from many civilizations that, while less consistent than alien theories, still have many common threads. It is not unreasonable to be skeptical of religion and even to disbelieve in God, but it is completely unreasonable to deny any possibility that God could exist. The supporting evidence for religion may be weak, but the opposing evidence does not exist at all!
The point of all of this is that believing the evidence supporting alien visitors is more rational than believing that all of the believers are crazy people. There is no call for insulting people who are basing their beliefs on actual evidence, especially when you have no evidence that they are wrong. And, if you are religious, consider that the evidence supporting alien visitors is far stronger than the evidence supporting your religion. Personally, I remain skeptical, but I am not so deluded as to assume that anyone who believes differently is crazy.
10 August 2015
Fax it to Me
In the past two weeks, I have been asked to do something involving fax twice. One was a bank, asking for my employer's fax number. The other was Medicaid asking for a fax with ID and car insurance information. Whenever something like this happens, it makes me wonder, "Do you realize that fax was obsolete over 10 years ago?"
My parents got their first scanner around 2000, and they were a bit behind on technology. This did not totally obsolete fax, because dial up internet was still common, and it could take 30 minutes or more to upload a half decent scan. Back then, modems often came with software for faxing from a scanned image, mostly for backward compatibility. This was faster than email, because the image quality could be dramatically reduced, but few people ever used this technology, for the reason I am going to discuss next. By 2005 though, internet speeds and computer technology had outstripped fax to the point where it is no longer worth wasting the money on the machine and the extra phone line.
The second problem is that even when faxing was still cool, normal people did not have fax machines. I can understand the bank asking for my employer's fax number. They may be behind the times, but there was a time when most businesses actually used fax machines. Even small home businesses often had fax numbers. The thing is, fax machines were never household appliances. When Medicaid asks for a fax of anything from someone they provide insurance to, they are asking that person to find a business that still uses fax, and get permission to use it to fax information (and keep in mind that Medicaid patients almost certainly cannot afford the hardware and the extra phone line). The thing is, even copy stores, where normal people used to go when they needed to send a fax, don't typically have fax machines anymore. Their copiers can almost certainly email a scanned image, but fax machines are ancient technology, even to them.
The absurdity of it all is astounding. There are still businesses that buy fax machines and spend money on extra phone lines for faxing, when they could just be using the scanners that come built into their printers, and the email programs on the computers that they are already using. Some printers even have an option for emailing a scan directly, without even needing to open your email program.
The moral of this story: Don't assume that someone you need information from has access to ancient technology that has been obsolete for over a decade. They probably don't. If you can't be bothered to use the modern technology you already have to replace expensive processes no one uses anymore, you are probably a burden on society that needs to be put down and replaced with something that can keep up.
My parents got their first scanner around 2000, and they were a bit behind on technology. This did not totally obsolete fax, because dial up internet was still common, and it could take 30 minutes or more to upload a half decent scan. Back then, modems often came with software for faxing from a scanned image, mostly for backward compatibility. This was faster than email, because the image quality could be dramatically reduced, but few people ever used this technology, for the reason I am going to discuss next. By 2005 though, internet speeds and computer technology had outstripped fax to the point where it is no longer worth wasting the money on the machine and the extra phone line.
The second problem is that even when faxing was still cool, normal people did not have fax machines. I can understand the bank asking for my employer's fax number. They may be behind the times, but there was a time when most businesses actually used fax machines. Even small home businesses often had fax numbers. The thing is, fax machines were never household appliances. When Medicaid asks for a fax of anything from someone they provide insurance to, they are asking that person to find a business that still uses fax, and get permission to use it to fax information (and keep in mind that Medicaid patients almost certainly cannot afford the hardware and the extra phone line). The thing is, even copy stores, where normal people used to go when they needed to send a fax, don't typically have fax machines anymore. Their copiers can almost certainly email a scanned image, but fax machines are ancient technology, even to them.
The absurdity of it all is astounding. There are still businesses that buy fax machines and spend money on extra phone lines for faxing, when they could just be using the scanners that come built into their printers, and the email programs on the computers that they are already using. Some printers even have an option for emailing a scan directly, without even needing to open your email program.
The moral of this story: Don't assume that someone you need information from has access to ancient technology that has been obsolete for over a decade. They probably don't. If you can't be bothered to use the modern technology you already have to replace expensive processes no one uses anymore, you are probably a burden on society that needs to be put down and replaced with something that can keep up.
08 August 2015
What's Wrong With Socialism
Socialism is a pretty big deal to conservatives. It is treated as the devil. Socialism is treated like tyranny. It takes away freedom and destroys fairness. It eliminates the will to work. Really though, what is actually wrong with socialism? Why do most conservatives fear it? Why do people think that it is a threat to freedom?
The answer is sadly simple: Taken to its logical end, socialism results in communism, where all wealth is equally distributed, everyone owns everything, thus no one owns anything, and there is no ownership, thus there is no motivation. Socialism as seen in the USSR is frightening, because, aside from the corruption aspect, it resulted in all of the things that most conservatives fear about it. It nearly eliminated personal freedom entirely, and it reduced motivation to work so far that it caused serious economic problems. This extreme socialism realized the darkest fears of conservatives.
There is a major problem with this fear though. During the earliest times of this nation, after it had declared independence, but before it became the US, a similar problem was observed with democratic republics. Contrary to popular belief, our founding fathers did not base the design of the Federal government entirely on the democratic republic of Athens (or similar governments of that era). Much of that design was based on existing colonial governments of the time. Different colonies were trying out different versions of democratic government, though nearly all used some form of republic. One problem that came up a lot was too much democracy. I believe the colony was Virgina (I might be wrong; it's been a while; there may also have been others). One colony created a legislature that had absolute power. The governor did not have veto power. The result was a very high level of democratic representation, which resulted in a very high level of democracy. The end result of this was that at one point, many farmers were having a difficult time paying their debts, so the legislature of this colony (mostly farmers, elected by farmers) passed a law suspending all debt payment for farmers. The result was catastrophic. With no legal guarantee for debt payments, lenders stopped lending. Those owning existing debts found relief, but those lending were quickly in serious financial trouble, and without anyone willing to grant more loans, the economy of the colony suffered very seriously. This was not the only problem. Different colonies experimented with different balances, all with different results. When the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they based the Federal government on what they had learned from all of these experiments. The President was given veto power, to help avoid problems like the Virginia situation. Congress was divided into two houses, partially because many states with a single legislature still had problems with too much democracy causing unwise laws to be passed, and partially because the state governments wanted more direct representation in Federal government (this last part was demolished when Senators became elected by public vote, instead of appointed by state governments). In short, too much democracy is no better than too much socialism. In fact, there are other historical cases where democratic governments have quickly destroyed themselves, because there was nothing to prevent the majority from ignorantly passing self destructive laws. Historically, democracy was such an epic failure that many of the founders of this nation even questioned the wisdom of a democratic government, because they feared this would happen with the US as well.
Any form of government taken to an extreme will result in problems. Isolating all governmental power in a single person has proven problematic almost constantly throughout history. Democratic forms of government have historically never lasted very long, because they tend to become very unstable as size increases. On paper, extreme communist socialism sounds like an excellent idea, but in practice, we have seen only disaster. In the US, we are seeing fairly extreme capitalism (extreme compared to most of history) recreating the feudal systems we thought we had thrown off long ago.
The problem is not socialism. The problem is extreme. The type of government matters less than how far it is pushed. In the US, we have gotten by for far longer than most governments throughout history have managed to stay stable, with a system combining democracy, republic, capitalism, and various amounts of socialism. The US is not purely democratic. It is not purely a republic (the Supreme Court is not elected by popular vote, among other things). It is not purely capitalistic (we regulate fairness and safety to some degree). It is not purely socialist. It does have elements of all of these though. None of these need to be feared, so long as they are not taken to extremes. Extreme democracy will result in voters making decisions that they are not informed enough to make. Extreme republic will result in so much politics that no one will have time for anything else, not to mention still having voters making decisions that they are not qualified to make. Extreme capitalism will result in a caste system including slavery, though perhaps less overt than the chattel slavery we are all familiar with. Extreme socialism will result in exactly the same things that happened with the USSR.
The fact is that the only extreme we are really close to is capitalism. We don't need to fear socialism, because we are so far away from it that we are suffering problems from the opposite extreme. The fears about socialism are well founded, but they should be fears about extreme socialism, not about socialism in general. Fearing socialism is about as logical as fearing democracy. In either case, there can be too much of a good thing, but too little is just as destructive. What we should really fear is imbalance. Right now, the imbalance is against socialism, not toward it.
What's wrong with socialism? The same thing that is wrong with capitalism and democracy: too much is a bad thing!
The answer is sadly simple: Taken to its logical end, socialism results in communism, where all wealth is equally distributed, everyone owns everything, thus no one owns anything, and there is no ownership, thus there is no motivation. Socialism as seen in the USSR is frightening, because, aside from the corruption aspect, it resulted in all of the things that most conservatives fear about it. It nearly eliminated personal freedom entirely, and it reduced motivation to work so far that it caused serious economic problems. This extreme socialism realized the darkest fears of conservatives.
There is a major problem with this fear though. During the earliest times of this nation, after it had declared independence, but before it became the US, a similar problem was observed with democratic republics. Contrary to popular belief, our founding fathers did not base the design of the Federal government entirely on the democratic republic of Athens (or similar governments of that era). Much of that design was based on existing colonial governments of the time. Different colonies were trying out different versions of democratic government, though nearly all used some form of republic. One problem that came up a lot was too much democracy. I believe the colony was Virgina (I might be wrong; it's been a while; there may also have been others). One colony created a legislature that had absolute power. The governor did not have veto power. The result was a very high level of democratic representation, which resulted in a very high level of democracy. The end result of this was that at one point, many farmers were having a difficult time paying their debts, so the legislature of this colony (mostly farmers, elected by farmers) passed a law suspending all debt payment for farmers. The result was catastrophic. With no legal guarantee for debt payments, lenders stopped lending. Those owning existing debts found relief, but those lending were quickly in serious financial trouble, and without anyone willing to grant more loans, the economy of the colony suffered very seriously. This was not the only problem. Different colonies experimented with different balances, all with different results. When the founding fathers drafted the Constitution, they based the Federal government on what they had learned from all of these experiments. The President was given veto power, to help avoid problems like the Virginia situation. Congress was divided into two houses, partially because many states with a single legislature still had problems with too much democracy causing unwise laws to be passed, and partially because the state governments wanted more direct representation in Federal government (this last part was demolished when Senators became elected by public vote, instead of appointed by state governments). In short, too much democracy is no better than too much socialism. In fact, there are other historical cases where democratic governments have quickly destroyed themselves, because there was nothing to prevent the majority from ignorantly passing self destructive laws. Historically, democracy was such an epic failure that many of the founders of this nation even questioned the wisdom of a democratic government, because they feared this would happen with the US as well.
Any form of government taken to an extreme will result in problems. Isolating all governmental power in a single person has proven problematic almost constantly throughout history. Democratic forms of government have historically never lasted very long, because they tend to become very unstable as size increases. On paper, extreme communist socialism sounds like an excellent idea, but in practice, we have seen only disaster. In the US, we are seeing fairly extreme capitalism (extreme compared to most of history) recreating the feudal systems we thought we had thrown off long ago.
The problem is not socialism. The problem is extreme. The type of government matters less than how far it is pushed. In the US, we have gotten by for far longer than most governments throughout history have managed to stay stable, with a system combining democracy, republic, capitalism, and various amounts of socialism. The US is not purely democratic. It is not purely a republic (the Supreme Court is not elected by popular vote, among other things). It is not purely capitalistic (we regulate fairness and safety to some degree). It is not purely socialist. It does have elements of all of these though. None of these need to be feared, so long as they are not taken to extremes. Extreme democracy will result in voters making decisions that they are not informed enough to make. Extreme republic will result in so much politics that no one will have time for anything else, not to mention still having voters making decisions that they are not qualified to make. Extreme capitalism will result in a caste system including slavery, though perhaps less overt than the chattel slavery we are all familiar with. Extreme socialism will result in exactly the same things that happened with the USSR.
The fact is that the only extreme we are really close to is capitalism. We don't need to fear socialism, because we are so far away from it that we are suffering problems from the opposite extreme. The fears about socialism are well founded, but they should be fears about extreme socialism, not about socialism in general. Fearing socialism is about as logical as fearing democracy. In either case, there can be too much of a good thing, but too little is just as destructive. What we should really fear is imbalance. Right now, the imbalance is against socialism, not toward it.
What's wrong with socialism? The same thing that is wrong with capitalism and democracy: too much is a bad thing!
07 August 2015
Single Payer System
I want to discuss why a single payer system for health care is better than insurance. I am not going to go into ethics or what people deserve. Instead, I am going to focus on value and efficiency.
First, it is important to fully understand what insurance is. On an individual level, insurance is a bet. The house bets that an event will not happen. The gambler bets that it will. For the customer, flood insurance is a bet that there will be a flood that causes more damage than the cost of the insurance. For the insurance company, it is a bet that such a flood will not happen. On a group level, insurance is a form of welfare. It is essentially a means for distributing costs (you have probably heard of distribution of wealth; well, insurance is a way to balance distribution of debt). When the insurance company looses a bet, the money used to pay for the losses comes from the money all of the other customers are putting into the pot. As gambling, insurance is no different from any other kind of gambling. The house always wins, and they want you to spend as much as possible, which is why they offer so many different options. As welfare, insurance is actually pretty awful. Imagine a welfare system where those administrating it constantly skim the poor box. This is more than just compensation for work. Insurance companies have CEOs, other extremely highly paid management, as well as shareholders who walk away with the house winnings. No well designed welfare system goes to such extreme efforts to avoid helping anyone, just to walk away with the unused funds.
In short, insurance makes extremely poor and inefficient welfare. It makes excellent gambling, at least for the house, but unless gambling is the whole point, insurance is actually pretty awful. Economically, there is one useful thing that insurance provides: jobs. Of course, paying people to spend 40 hours a week digging random holes would provide jobs as well, and those jobs might actually produce real value (good exercise for the employees, if nothing else). Work for the sake of jobs is just plain stupid. If work does not generate actual value, then it is not worth doing.
The better solution is real welfare. Real welfare is not gambling. Done well everyone wins. Real welfare minimizes work, to maximize the help it can provide. Real welfare does not have executives that are paid more in a month than most people make in a lifetime, and it does not have investors who ultimately get paid from the work of others.
It is very clear that our current health care situation in the US is unacceptable (despite Obamacare). Aside from reducing costs (which not even the government seems interested in), the only way to fix this situation is to spread the cost of health care out. Insurance is a very poor way of doing this, because insurance is more about gambling than welfare. Long term, the costs of insurance on the economy are far worse than the long term costs of welfare, despite the loss of jobs associated with eliminating health insurance companies. Economically, a single payer system is superior in almost every way to what amounts to mandated gambling.
First, it is important to fully understand what insurance is. On an individual level, insurance is a bet. The house bets that an event will not happen. The gambler bets that it will. For the customer, flood insurance is a bet that there will be a flood that causes more damage than the cost of the insurance. For the insurance company, it is a bet that such a flood will not happen. On a group level, insurance is a form of welfare. It is essentially a means for distributing costs (you have probably heard of distribution of wealth; well, insurance is a way to balance distribution of debt). When the insurance company looses a bet, the money used to pay for the losses comes from the money all of the other customers are putting into the pot. As gambling, insurance is no different from any other kind of gambling. The house always wins, and they want you to spend as much as possible, which is why they offer so many different options. As welfare, insurance is actually pretty awful. Imagine a welfare system where those administrating it constantly skim the poor box. This is more than just compensation for work. Insurance companies have CEOs, other extremely highly paid management, as well as shareholders who walk away with the house winnings. No well designed welfare system goes to such extreme efforts to avoid helping anyone, just to walk away with the unused funds.
In short, insurance makes extremely poor and inefficient welfare. It makes excellent gambling, at least for the house, but unless gambling is the whole point, insurance is actually pretty awful. Economically, there is one useful thing that insurance provides: jobs. Of course, paying people to spend 40 hours a week digging random holes would provide jobs as well, and those jobs might actually produce real value (good exercise for the employees, if nothing else). Work for the sake of jobs is just plain stupid. If work does not generate actual value, then it is not worth doing.
The better solution is real welfare. Real welfare is not gambling. Done well everyone wins. Real welfare minimizes work, to maximize the help it can provide. Real welfare does not have executives that are paid more in a month than most people make in a lifetime, and it does not have investors who ultimately get paid from the work of others.
It is very clear that our current health care situation in the US is unacceptable (despite Obamacare). Aside from reducing costs (which not even the government seems interested in), the only way to fix this situation is to spread the cost of health care out. Insurance is a very poor way of doing this, because insurance is more about gambling than welfare. Long term, the costs of insurance on the economy are far worse than the long term costs of welfare, despite the loss of jobs associated with eliminating health insurance companies. Economically, a single payer system is superior in almost every way to what amounts to mandated gambling.
03 August 2015
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
A landlord sues a tenant for not paying rent four months in a row. The tenant says the rent was paid on time each of those months. The landlord's lawyer asks the tenant for some proof that the rent was paid. The tenant, who is representing herself, says she was not given receipts when she paid the rent, and it was paid in cash, so there are no bank records of the transaction aside from withdrawals for amounts that represent rent as well as some bills. Because there is no proof the rent was paid, the judge rules that the tenant has to pay the landlord the value of four months rent.
An employee blows the whistle on an OSHA violation where he works. A week later, he is fired without cause. He knows that there are anti-retribution laws specifically intended to protect whistle blowers, but he cannot afford a lawyer, so he walks away. He ends up unemployed for over 6 months, because his previous employer lies about his character when called for references. He knows he could sue for slander, but again, he cannot afford legal representation, so he just deals with it.
A small video game company comes up with an awesome new game idea. Partway through public beta testing, a major game company files a lawsuit against them for patent infringement. The lead designer knows the element in question has been used before, and that it was in a game much older than the large company's patent, but he cannot recall what that game was. Settling out of court would destroy the company, essentially turning it into a slave of the larger company, so they opt to hire a lawyer. When the lead designer still cannot remember the name of the game that used the element in question, the judge rules that the small company infringed on the larger company's patent. Ultimately, the legal costs cause the small company to go bankrupt.
These three stories have several things in common. The first is that the rich prey on the poor. In the first story, the landlord uses the legal system to rob the tenant. In the second, the employer sends a message to its employees, that retribution will be served for reporting labor law violations. In the third, the big company destroys potential competition using a patent that is not technically valid. The second thing they have in common is that none of the defending parties have adequate legal representation. The first two have no representation, and the third does not have sufficient legal representation to do the necessary research to find the prior art that would invalidate the patent. The third thing they have in common is that the defending parties are all assumed to be guilty unless they can prove their own innocence. In short, justice is not met, fair legal representation is not available, and the principle of innocence until guilt is proven is violated.
In criminal trials, the U.S. Constitution mandates a legal right to legal council for the defendant. U.S. criminal courts provide court appointed lawyers for defendants that cannot afford to pay for their own. This is protected as a legal right. This right is not extended to civil law though. This is a problem. In the above three situations, sufficient legal council was a necessary part of a just outcome, and without that, justice was not served. In the first, a lawyer might have been able to gain access to the landlords financial records to search for evidence that the rent was paid. In the second, the lack of legal council was the pivotal factor that ultimately prevented the victim from even pursuing the issue. In the third, better legal council might have been able to find the prior art that the lead designer could not. Even in civil cases, fair legal representation is necessary to ensure justice, but in the U.S., only criminal defendants are provided with legal representation.
U.S. law does not actually mandate the idea of innocence until guilt is proven. Taken together, several Constitutional amendments are interpreted to mean that this principle should be followed, but this really comes down to ambiguous phrases like "fair trial." Further, these amendments apply only to criminal cases, not to civil cases. This is also a problem. Many civil cases place the burden of proof on the defendant. In other words, the defendant is assumed guilty unless she can prove innocence. Typically this is a matter of convenience, and it has nothing to do with justice. It is more convenient for a defendant to produce proof of payment than it is for a prosecutor to prove that payment was not rendered. It is more convenient to ask the defendant to provide proof of prior art or proof that an idea is common knowledge or otherwise not novel or unique than it is for the prosecutor to prove that no one has ever had the idea before or that the idea is particularly ingenious. The fact, however, is that doing these things places the burden of proof on the defendant, making the defendant legally guilty unless she can provide proof that she is not. Not only is this common in civil cases, it is a problem in a majority of civil cases involving wealthy prosecutors suing poor defendants, who cannot afford legal representation.
In the recent past, these two things have been established all over the world as fundamental human rights. It is widely recognized that trying someone without adequate representation is unfair and morally wrong. Likewise, it is also widely recognized that the accuser bears the burden of proof, not the accused. In fact, this was well understood even in some ancient cultures, where an accuser could be put to death, if proof of the accusation could not be established.
The fact is that there is little difference between criminal and civil law. Both are intended to prevent or mitigate harm. The only difference is classification and penalty. In criminal law, the state acts against the suspect. The suspect is judged by a jury based on codified legal standards. If the suspect is found guilty, a penalty is selected based on a set of codified standards. The punishments all restrict the freedom of the convict. In civil law, an individual or organization acts against the suspect. The suspect is judged by a judge based on personal opinion and legal precedent. If the suspect is found guilty, the judge determines a penalty based on the request of the prosecutor and the cost of the damage. The penalties typically take the form of fines paid to the state and remunerations given to the prosecutor. The actions prompting a lawsuit can be nearly identical in many cases, with only minor differences. For example, if you accuse me of stealing money from your pocket, I will go to criminal court. If I live in your apartment building, and you accuse me of not paying my rent, I will go to civil court, despite the fact that the harm caused may be identical. Both cases amount to theft. The circumstances of the theft are different, and this is used as justification to provide counsel for one and not the other and to assume initial innocence in one and initial guilt in the other. The differences between criminal and civil cases do not justify refusing to provide fair counsel or assuming initial guilt.
Civil law needs two things desperately: Fair representation and innocence until guilt is proven. These two things are essential parts of a fair justice system, and without them, justice cannot be served, regardless of whether it is criminal or civil court.
An employee blows the whistle on an OSHA violation where he works. A week later, he is fired without cause. He knows that there are anti-retribution laws specifically intended to protect whistle blowers, but he cannot afford a lawyer, so he walks away. He ends up unemployed for over 6 months, because his previous employer lies about his character when called for references. He knows he could sue for slander, but again, he cannot afford legal representation, so he just deals with it.
A small video game company comes up with an awesome new game idea. Partway through public beta testing, a major game company files a lawsuit against them for patent infringement. The lead designer knows the element in question has been used before, and that it was in a game much older than the large company's patent, but he cannot recall what that game was. Settling out of court would destroy the company, essentially turning it into a slave of the larger company, so they opt to hire a lawyer. When the lead designer still cannot remember the name of the game that used the element in question, the judge rules that the small company infringed on the larger company's patent. Ultimately, the legal costs cause the small company to go bankrupt.
These three stories have several things in common. The first is that the rich prey on the poor. In the first story, the landlord uses the legal system to rob the tenant. In the second, the employer sends a message to its employees, that retribution will be served for reporting labor law violations. In the third, the big company destroys potential competition using a patent that is not technically valid. The second thing they have in common is that none of the defending parties have adequate legal representation. The first two have no representation, and the third does not have sufficient legal representation to do the necessary research to find the prior art that would invalidate the patent. The third thing they have in common is that the defending parties are all assumed to be guilty unless they can prove their own innocence. In short, justice is not met, fair legal representation is not available, and the principle of innocence until guilt is proven is violated.
In criminal trials, the U.S. Constitution mandates a legal right to legal council for the defendant. U.S. criminal courts provide court appointed lawyers for defendants that cannot afford to pay for their own. This is protected as a legal right. This right is not extended to civil law though. This is a problem. In the above three situations, sufficient legal council was a necessary part of a just outcome, and without that, justice was not served. In the first, a lawyer might have been able to gain access to the landlords financial records to search for evidence that the rent was paid. In the second, the lack of legal council was the pivotal factor that ultimately prevented the victim from even pursuing the issue. In the third, better legal council might have been able to find the prior art that the lead designer could not. Even in civil cases, fair legal representation is necessary to ensure justice, but in the U.S., only criminal defendants are provided with legal representation.
U.S. law does not actually mandate the idea of innocence until guilt is proven. Taken together, several Constitutional amendments are interpreted to mean that this principle should be followed, but this really comes down to ambiguous phrases like "fair trial." Further, these amendments apply only to criminal cases, not to civil cases. This is also a problem. Many civil cases place the burden of proof on the defendant. In other words, the defendant is assumed guilty unless she can prove innocence. Typically this is a matter of convenience, and it has nothing to do with justice. It is more convenient for a defendant to produce proof of payment than it is for a prosecutor to prove that payment was not rendered. It is more convenient to ask the defendant to provide proof of prior art or proof that an idea is common knowledge or otherwise not novel or unique than it is for the prosecutor to prove that no one has ever had the idea before or that the idea is particularly ingenious. The fact, however, is that doing these things places the burden of proof on the defendant, making the defendant legally guilty unless she can provide proof that she is not. Not only is this common in civil cases, it is a problem in a majority of civil cases involving wealthy prosecutors suing poor defendants, who cannot afford legal representation.
In the recent past, these two things have been established all over the world as fundamental human rights. It is widely recognized that trying someone without adequate representation is unfair and morally wrong. Likewise, it is also widely recognized that the accuser bears the burden of proof, not the accused. In fact, this was well understood even in some ancient cultures, where an accuser could be put to death, if proof of the accusation could not be established.
The fact is that there is little difference between criminal and civil law. Both are intended to prevent or mitigate harm. The only difference is classification and penalty. In criminal law, the state acts against the suspect. The suspect is judged by a jury based on codified legal standards. If the suspect is found guilty, a penalty is selected based on a set of codified standards. The punishments all restrict the freedom of the convict. In civil law, an individual or organization acts against the suspect. The suspect is judged by a judge based on personal opinion and legal precedent. If the suspect is found guilty, the judge determines a penalty based on the request of the prosecutor and the cost of the damage. The penalties typically take the form of fines paid to the state and remunerations given to the prosecutor. The actions prompting a lawsuit can be nearly identical in many cases, with only minor differences. For example, if you accuse me of stealing money from your pocket, I will go to criminal court. If I live in your apartment building, and you accuse me of not paying my rent, I will go to civil court, despite the fact that the harm caused may be identical. Both cases amount to theft. The circumstances of the theft are different, and this is used as justification to provide counsel for one and not the other and to assume initial innocence in one and initial guilt in the other. The differences between criminal and civil cases do not justify refusing to provide fair counsel or assuming initial guilt.
Civil law needs two things desperately: Fair representation and innocence until guilt is proven. These two things are essential parts of a fair justice system, and without them, justice cannot be served, regardless of whether it is criminal or civil court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)