A lawyerless judicial system might be more modern way for justice

For every good judge there are 1000 bad precedents, and 2000 bad lawyers who can manipulate the case and bring in false witnesses leaving judges helpless.

I can understand about lawyers as almost anyone hates them when it comes to their fees, strategies and tactics. but judges? aren't they supposed to be neutral and just employed to facilitate and hear the case. Can cite a specific example?

That is the point...judges study law and are at times advocates themselves. This means ...they cant go against their previous stand. We need a bench of judges..or juries if you prefer...from all walks of life, lawyers included. Out there in open we can discuss the issues...and people who have been through something similar can share their experience discuss pros and cons...and based on that eventually the voting should be done. I think the juries panel should be of 50 members. Its not essential that the same jury presides the following day because the matter is recorded, and if he or she had any comments to make even that is recorded. Effectively, it would be judges arguing amongst themselves about what would be right in the given situation. We have commissions as of now..the only thing is I am asking for larger number of people participating in this, and from different walks of life, different strata of society and everybody gets their say...and while it may seem to take long, because of so many judges, I think consensus is possible if it is just and equitable without exactly succumbing to the pressures of customs, and religion. I am afraid I dont have any specific example. However, if there are more number of judges, or jury members, it would be difficult for the defendant to buy them out as is possible at times in our country.

I didn't say that all cases are alike, but precedents are usually considered. If the plaintiff waives a jury trial, the judge, then, decides guilt or innocence and sets the punishment, within the laws of the state where the crime occurred.

That is exactly what I want to say..."within the laws of the state". The state does not consider difference between gangrape by 4 or 40. As far as the state is concerned it is a rape by more than one person at the same time. Right? Imagine a young girl being picked from the road for no fault of hers, just that she appealed to a few men from behind because of her naturally endowed structure, and then being kept captive by forty men for several days, she lost count of, daily being raped by several of them, and finally thrown back on the road, in a state that she could barely walk. The state would not even consider it as a gang rape, because definition under law is lays down specific conditions. The girl is still under medication for physiological and psychological trauma. Her parents were not the enemies of any of those 40 persons. Nor were her parents witnesses in any of the cases that were registered against any of those persons. Usually, that is the technique adopted to intimidate the witnesses. So shouldnt the judge have the liberty to cross the boundaries of law in such cases, and penalize the culprits to an extent that such things dont happen ever?

So do you think one rule applies to all cases? I mean if a girl is gangraped by 4 persons, and gangraped by 40 persons, is it not different? That is why...I think judges should have discretion to increase penalties or include additional penalties..whatever they think appropriate and that may be prayed by the victim or plaintiff.

"Court proceedings can only be effective when both the defendants and prosecutions are given the right amount of time and rights to do their due diligence to prove their case beyond doubt." This is what I want removed...there is no differentiation between defendants, and prosecution, instead, judges sit there to decide whether there is some wrong done, whether such wrong deserves some punishment, and why it deserves more punishment, and what would be the most appropriate punishment. There is no prosecution, no defendant...just a plaintiff..and rest of the discussions are only between the judges. Each of the judges have a right to talk both in favor and against..based on merit of each case. Effectively judges argue amongst themselves whether the injury was grave enough and if so, what is the right punishment. :) That was the idea..

Ok..this is what I actually thought...make it mandatory for every TV channel to broadcast at least one case being held in their city... And then scrap the existing law books, most are so outdated...they are as old as senile judges we have...with exception of some of course.. So about 50 lawyers sit and discuss the case...and police is asked to provide evidence..as and when needed...including expert opinion and other government records... So the lawyers discuss amongst themselves why the person is guilty and why the person is not guilty...they get paid by the channel...and people who watch the case also get to vote like they do in Sa Re Ga Ma Pa.. The lawyer who spoke for the plaintiff can also have a point against the plaintiff...effectively each lawyer looks at the case dispassionately and at the end of the session ...suggests the punishment for the crime. We get to vote whether it is the acceptable punishment or not...whichever punishment is considered right...holds good for that case and that case alone...it does not become a precedent for the next...other than ...such punishments have been suggested and given before..type. Effectively, we employ all the lawyers as judges...and we dont run short of judges or courts or court time, and we also ensure that general public votes so people have a say in the matter...if need be there can be interactive...from some locations. Those who feel they need to opine need to qualify at the interactive centers.

No we dont. But if the cases were telecast instead of those good for nothing serials and people got to SMS yes or no...and all the lawyers putting their arguments for or against, we might be dispensing justice faster and better and without prejudices, intimidations, and with fairness. Dont you think?

Who knows ...someday they will realize that existing system is of no use. And then they will start a new way of dispensing with justice. We may not be there to become as great as Socrates and Plato, but our ideas would survive in some minds, and help may be to forma better society. :)

Who knows it better than me...been fighting a case since 1984...its still in Supreme court..lol Even if Supreme court is satisfied with our arguments, it will send the matter back to high court, and then again another couple of years. The case has been on final hearing from more than an year now...

I am sick of these petitions. The ultimate object is to take it to a court where it is easy to manipulate things. You already know that I suspected that all this was a sham...they are waiting for public protests to die down.