http://glasses-justice.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] glasses-justice.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] fandomhigh2010-03-23 02:56 pm
Entry tags:

Concepts of Justice and The Law [Period 4, Class #11, Mar 23]

This week, Alex was carrying a large styrofoam cup that she had filled with hot water. She was dunking a teabag into the cup as she talked, the string looped around two of her fingers so it wouldn't slip off. Tea-on-the-go.

"Afternoon," she said, nodding to her students. "First of all, I apologize that I wasn't as detached from the subject matter as I'd like to have been, last week. I try to present gray areas so that we can discuss all angles of a situation; having my own experiences color the talk don't do us any favors."

That was all she felt comfortable saying about that.

"The topic of civil court came up during last week's discussion, so I decided now was a good time for us to cover that. All of the law we've discussed this term has been criminal law. A citizen commits a crime, and the government, on behalf of the People, files charges. The case goes to trial, and the prosecution bears the burden of proof. If found guilty, the citizen will presumably be sent to prison.

"However. The judicial system can also settle disputes between two private parties, or between organizations. Let's say that you and a mechanic sign a contract, saying that you'll pay him $500 and he will replace your engine. After a week, the mechanic says he can't replace your engine, and returns the car -- but refuses to refund your money. You could argue that this is theft, and attempt to have him arrested on criminal charges, but it's going to be an uphill battle, and it won't get your money back. Instead, you would file a lawsuit in civil court, asking a judge to determine that he is in breach of his contract. If the judge agrees, the mechanic can be ordered to pay you the $500, plus possibly your fees for going to court, or a few hundred more in 'punitive' damages, to slap him on the wrist.

"Civil court also covers torts, wrongful acts that damage someone while not necessarily being criminal. If you cause harm to someone else from negligence and not malicious intent, the victim might file suit against you to pay for their medical bills, along with 'pain and suffering.' Damage doesn't have to be physical; libel and slander are both torts, and those involve maliciously damaging a person's reputation. It should be noted here that truth is a valid defense for libel and slander, regardless of the malice. So if the tabloids publish a sleazy article saying that you're a homewrecker who is sleeping with a politician, it's malicious, but you won't win a libel case if they can prove the affair happened.

"In civil court, the burden of proof is on the person filing charges. But the requirements are more lax. You don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the jury only needs to believe that the allegation is more likely to be true than not. And while criminal trials require a jury to reach a unanimous verdict, civil court can settle with nine out of twelve agreeing." She offered a wry smile to her students. "As we're not at trial, I'd like to remind you that we're not obligated to agree on anything whatsoever. So let's talk about civil court."
momslilassassin: ([neg] I have a hood and am looking down)

Re: Sign In - JST11

[personal profile] momslilassassin 2010-03-23 08:57 pm (UTC)(link)
Ben Skywalker, the question is ambiguous

Re: Sign In - JST11

[identity profile] blondecanary.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 09:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Dinah Lance, this is hearsay, your Honor!
likethegun: (i'm bitchfacing like a pro)

Re: Sign In - JST11

[personal profile] likethegun 2010-03-23 10:32 pm (UTC)(link)
Sam Winchester, that's a compound question

Re: Sign In - JST11

[identity profile] rocksthescarf.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 10:50 pm (UTC)(link)
Chuck Bass, the question is argumentative

Re: Sign In - JST11

[identity profile] ihaveniceteeth.livejournal.com 2010-03-23 11:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Gwen Cooper, the witness is non-responsive
bitten_notshy: ([neg] arrogant)

Re: Sign In - JST11

[personal profile] bitten_notshy 2010-03-24 12:04 am (UTC)(link)
Jack Priest irrelevant evidence of good character
Edited 2010-03-24 00:06 (UTC)

Re: Sign In - JST11

[identity profile] once-a-traitor.livejournal.com 2010-03-24 01:02 am (UTC)(link)
Edmund Pevensie compound question

Re: Sign In - JST11

[identity profile] not-jaded-yet.livejournal.com 2010-03-24 01:07 am (UTC)(link)
Jennifer Walters, Arguing the Law
exspeedydotcom: (bitchface)

Re: Sign In - JST11

[personal profile] exspeedydotcom 2010-03-24 02:24 am (UTC)(link)
Roy Harper because, that's why
heromaniac: (point up)

Re: Sign In - JST11

[personal profile] heromaniac 2010-03-24 02:33 am (UTC)(link)
Momoko Akatsutsumi, asked and answered, your Honour.