What I Think of the Legal System

There are times when I think of the law and it seems to be nothing but a hindrance to the way most of us live our lives. But from the other perspective, it is not that your freedom is squelched by the law, but your privileges are protected by it. We give up rights to the government so that we can be protected from each other and ourselves. There was a time where the only existing laws came about naturally and symbiotically in the chaos of the universe through the relationships of all types of matter. “Since earliest times, people have recognized that they are to a certain extent responsible for one another and have obligations to one another beyond those required by the law.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, P. 8) But in today’s modern world, the complexity of laws on city, state, and federal levels can be an enormous burden to the ignorant. Almost every day, I see or hear of a situation where someone obliviously wandered into a web of contracts and constricting laws by not having an appropriate amount of knowledge that would have better prepared them for such an incident. I think that the law is only as good as the people who acknowledge and enforce it. The spontaneous and morally grey nature (or nurture) of today’s society causes me to see the law as an immovable, massive system of documents created by millions of different opinions and feelings. In the end, I feel that I won’t ever have much of an effect on the way things are run in the world, but I also feel that freedom comes from inside yourself and cannot be given to you by anyone. It is a feeling or a mentality that can only come from within.

Myspace Hoax Week 2

Cyber bullying, this is the term the media put hand-in-hand with the court case of Lori Drew, a woman from Missouri who decided to create a fake MySpace account, which ended in 13 year-old Megan Meier’s suicide. Although suicide was an indirect result, Drew was only convicted of three misdemeanor counts of unauthorized access to computers. Writing false information for public view can have unseen consequences, as demonstrated in this case. It is similar to the film Absence of Malice, because the reporter from the movie, and Drew from the court case, utilized and printed information that was not true. This ultimately led to a suicide in both instances. In the case of Drew, she obviously was making an attempt to emotionally disrupt Megan Meier, which is, by definition a tort. It was a private wrong directed at her well-being. In the film, Gallagher is defamed by a reporter, who is unknowingly aiding a team of investigators in their search for information on a completely different topic. This is also a tort since it involves defamation and may be considered a private wrong. The difference between Drew and the reporter in the film, although they both are roots of false information and instigators of torts, is that Drew was committing a tort with a malicious motive. Since the printing company had no malicious motive, the lawyer concluded that they could release the story without fear of some type of counter action from Gallagher. The repercussions of these laws in conjunction with one another are huge. Although Drew indirectly caused a suicide, which sounds like it could be considered third degree murder, she was acquitted of all felony conspiracy charges and claimed that she only intended to see what Megan was saying about her daughter. How often is law illogical?

What do you think of lawyers?

What do I think of lawyers? Well I have to start by tearing down the word itself. The substance lays in that little three letter word: law. Lawyers are supposed to be law professionals. They work for society, taking payments to defend or attack your position, whatever it may be, in the courtroom. Just like any other person, regardless of the label, we all have different values and beliefs. We don’t all listen to the same conscience, so we aren’t going to the feel the same way about a particular situation. Now, the actual motives of the lawyers come into play. If you hire a lawyer for a case, are they motivated by ethical concerns, or are they being motivated financially? This is the question I would ask myself if I had to go to court for some reason. The only time I can vividly recall talking to a lawyer face to face, was when I went with a friend who was in a car accident. While waiting at a red light, a semi truck belonging to a construction company plowed into the back of the automobile. Looking at the case, you could probably predict the outcome. So I went with her to the company building. The inside reminded me of Tony Montana’s house from the film, Scarface. Inside I saw a symbolic liberty statue that must have been worth at least five thousand dollars. Getting to the lawyer himself… His hair was probably synthetic; his suit looked as if it cost more than everything in my closet. But what I remember most of all, was his nasty, dirty, rotten looking tooth. Looking back now, he was lucky to get a case where the ethics and the money are flowing one way. Otherwise he has to act a bit too!