Random Thoughts

Is it the Lawyers that are all messed up?  Or is it We The People?

Lawyers stereotypically have a bad reputation. But really who is it that deserves the blame for this? Are the lawyers really the ones that are bad or is it “We the People”?

Rather a crime has been committed, an accident occurred, or there is a dispute over money, there is usually a person in the wrong.  In most cases people know when they are right or wrong.

Knowing you are wrong is simple, usually you just know.  Being honest enough to admit it, is a completely different story.  People don’t want to admit they are wrong for a lot of different reasons.  They might not want to hurt their ego by admitting they screwed up.  They may have learned as children never to admit fault due to abusive parents.  They might have something to gain from not admitting fault.  They may fear losing something if they admit fault.  There are more reasons I’m sure, but you can see there are plenty of reasons someone would not want to admit they are wrong. 

When someone doesn’t admit fault when confronted an argument starts between 2 people.  If the person in the wrong would have admitted it, and did what was needed to make it right, the argument would never happen.   But since this is not the case, an unbiased 3rd party is helpful to help decide who is right and who is wrong.  The problem is, the unbiased person is will eventually have to tell someone something they don’t want to hear.  Now the argument escalates.

This is where a judge is introduced to the situation.  A judge is an unbiased 3rd party but he has an advantage, he has the law on his side.  What he decides is simply the way it is going to be.  That decision will be backed up and enforced by law enforcement if necessary.

Two people arguing over something in front of a judge can result in a very emotionally charged situation.  This makes it difficult for the judge to sort through the rational thoughts and facts.  Now we have a need for a lawyer.  A lawyer is someone that will represent a person in front of the judge.  Lawyers are good at arguing since it is their job and they are not emotionally involved in the situation.  This makes it easy for them to gather information and argue for someone in court.  Having lawyers talk to the judge helps keep things calm in the court room so the judge can hear all the facts from both sides.

Since the judge is there as the unbiased person in this scenario the lawyers are not there to decide who is right or wrong.  They are there to argue, to the best of their ability, for the person they represent.  Both sides get a lawyer so each lawyer can focus on only one side of the argument.  Even if a lawyer was to feel his client were wrong he has to argue for that person, that is his job.  This is needed so the judge may be presented with as much information as possible from BOTH sides.

When we see someone in court that is clearly wrong, we tend to look down on his lawyer.  We call him a cheat, a liar, a snake, etc.  We do this because it is clear the lawyer is arguing for someone that is wrong.  The lawyer is only doing what he is paid to do, argue for his client.  That is his only function in the court room.  He is not allowed to pass judgment on the person he represents.

The person we should call a liar, a cheat, a snake, etc is the person the lawyer is representing.  If that person were to admit they were wrong in the first place, this argument in court would either not exist or would go very smooth.

If someone steals something and gets caught, they should just admit it and do what it takes to make it right.  If someone burns themselves on hot coffee, they should admit they messed up by spilling a liquid that they already knew was hot.  If someone drives into another person’s car, they should admit it and let the insurance claims go smoothly.  If someone ……………………….. You get the idea.

If “We the People” were more honest and would admit we were wrong when we knew it, there would be little need for lawyers.  There would still be a few cases where things are mixed up and it is hard to really tell who is right or wrong.  In those cases lawyers would still be needed and we would not pass judgment on the lawyer anyway.

Next time you are whining about some of the crazy things you hear about in court, take a look at yourself and those around you.  How many times have you not wanted to admit you were wrong for any reason?

The blame for all the craziness we see in the courts should be placed on you me and everyone around us, “We the People”.  The lawyers are simply doing their job to the best of their ability.

People will not suddenly start admitting they are wrong. So stop blaming the lawyers, sit back and ENJOY THE CRAZINESS!

Yes, No and Sometimes people.........

There are 3 kinds of people, Yes, No and Sometimes. 

I feel being a sometimes person is best.  Rather than try explain this in a general sense, I think it would be best to use an analogy.

The setting for the analogy is the work place.  In this work place there is occasionally a need for employees to work over time.  Each time over time is required, the supervisor asks employees if they would like to work any over time.  A supervisor soon gets used to who to ask based on answers he has received in the past. 

Those that always say no are never asked because the supervisor knows what the answer will be.  When a supervisor asks a no person, they are not surprised when they get the no answer and eventually stop asking.  In the event they do need some over time, they will never be asked and therefore never get the opportunity.

Those that always say yes are given the opportunity every time because the supervisor learns he can always count on them to work it.  The yes people will always be given the opportunity.  But this constant opportunity can come at a price.  The price is a sense of being trapped.  These people can get in the habit of always saying yes.  They say yes even when it is not what they want.  If a yes person does say no, the supervisor gets frustrated with that person and tensions start.  When someone gets an answer that is not what they have learned to expect from you they tend to get frustrated and sometimes angry with you.

The middle ground is being a sometimes person.  Those that sometimes say yes and sometimes say no are still asked, but the supervisor is never sure what answer will be given.  The sometimes people will take it when they want it and not take it when they don't.  When they say yes the supervisor is glad they can help out.  If they say no the supervisor is not surprised and accepts the answer and moves on.

This is just a very simple over generalized analogy of what I am trying to convey.  This yes, no, sometimes approach can be applied to other areas of life.  Examples would be when asked to help move or fix something.  When asked to go out.  When asked anything on a regular basis.