In the book a test of faith it is about a lesbian couple who split up. One of the women was assaulted because of her sexuality. It shows how some people can be mean towards homosexuals. It shows what some people that are homosexual deal with living in a closed minded world.

It shows how when some people seek help because they need it they are often turned away for some reason or another. It shows how hard it is to seek needed help from professional such a a psychiatrist etc. It shows how messed up the legal system is.

In the book a test of faith it shows how messed up Christian people can be. It also shows how people do things in the name of their god which isn’t right. Such as rape people who are lesbians and assault them because it is what god wants.

In this book though it also shows how real Christians are. How people who believe in god and are really right with him will do whats right to help others.

I liked this book. I think that it was a nice story about how people really can be in different scenarios and how messed up this world it. I also like that it shows how messed up cops can be.

Adat law, or it’s often only mentioned as Adat, is unwritten law. The source of Adat Law is habits and customs that done continuously and obeyed as law by Indonesians. Because Adat is unwritten, grow, developed and maintained in social life, so can adjust to changing times and elastic.

Adat Law in a region sometimes differs from Adat Law in other region. It can be understood, because Indonesia consists of hundreds tribes. Of course every ethnic group has its own custom, culture and values that become law.

Many historians state that customs and characteristic of people were the basis of Adat Law. Adat is an embodiment of the traditional values and morals as an expression of universal values.

Today Adat Law is still in forced. But it regulates limited aspect of life, as marriage, divorce, birth, death, and inheritance. Of course, once, Adat Law in a region may be different from the others.

For instance concerning marriage. The Batak tribe (West Sumatra) adopts the patrilineal system, while Minangkabau tribe (North Sumatra) uses matrilineal system. Whereas bilateral system is used in Java, Madura, Aceh, Riau, etc.

Other example, about adoption. In Bali, adopted child doesn’t have legal connection with his blood parent. Whereas in Java (Center Java), adopted child still has legal connection with his blood parent.

Adat Law sometimes stronger than National Law in a region.

(Image from Google)

Another thing is that in the case of domestic violence towards women, they are afraid to go about their lives because the legal system does not offer sufficient help. Especially, if there is a child involved. Most mothers fear for the safety of themselves and their kids and in most cases tend to flee the state or country they reside in to escape the abuse towards themselves and/or their children. Abusers are very sick people. Some of them may claim they were never abusive even if they were.

Now if a woman has a child, all of a sudden it is their fault for choosing the wrong partner. What if said partner, was nice in the beginning of the relationship and then all of a sudden turned violent? Normally, there are signs of whether you are in an abusive relationship or not, but sometimes people can’t see the signs. The people that can’t see the signs end up being victims and when they finally escape, the legal system frowns upon them.

Also, when an order of protection is issued, it is just a piece of paper. A piece of paper does not offer much protection. So many women who get abused refuse to get the order of protection, or are forced not to get it by other people and so on and so forth. Good luck if you have a kid with the abusive party! What these people don’t realize is that the order of protection is there to help them. Grant it, 99.9% of police are real scum but there are good cops out there.

However, no one I know of really focuses on the bigger picture. Take Triond for example. The pay sucks! However, you get residual payments that eventually turn into something you can use. I am sure all the triond writers here have other jobs as well in order to pay the bills and live, because living on Triond alone would not even make a meager income to live.

Now take a chess board. This is my Dad’s analogy but it is right. On a chess board your object is to kill the king. Some players only focus on the small picture like a rook taking a queen. (I admit I am guilty of this myself at times.) However, if you stop to look at a certain piece and see the positioning you can make an educated guess about your opponent’s next three moves and make your own move from there. You can apply the chess game analogy I have used here, to everyday life if you just stop to think about it.

Have you thought of the bigger picture lately in whatever you’re situation is?

Image via Wikipedia

Ignorance of Islam have caused a lot of debate and discussion which been aired in the traditional media and the world wide web. Some of the world citizens perceived Islam as a religion that wants to convert every human on earth. Some even thought Islam as religion that promote aggression. All the negative views have no merit what so ever if people have access to the true teaching of Islam. Any negative reports related to Muslim shouldn’t be taken as an Islam teaching. 

Non Muslim and even Muslim should be supplied with the correct information about Islam, the person that made negative comments can’t be blame for their opinion if they did not have the right information. Therefore the blame lies upon the Muslim society for not being active in exposing the true teaching.

Most of the world citizens believed that every Muslim majority country are Islāmic country. There are even comments saying the only Muslim majority country that is not an Islāmic country is Turkey. This show the ignorance of the public. Most of the Islāmic country that stated Islam as their state religion does not mean it is an Islāmic country as stated in the teaching of Islam.

Malaysia as an example declared Islam as its state religion but other religions are free to be practice. Islam is just a symbol for Malaysia and only for ceremonial purposes. The legal system and political system of Malaysia 100% derived from the British system. So in Islam view, Malaysia is not an Islāmic entity. Most of the country that took Islam as it state religion doesn.t even have the Islāmic legal system in place. Most of this so called Islāmic country implemented either system derived from the west or from their own creations.

There are countries that claimed having Islāmic legal system but there’s no truth in that. Saudi Arabia as an example, the recent development where women there wants to have the right to drive. Most non Muslim perceived this is the way of Islam. The world have been confused between Arab culture and the Islāmic principles. In Islam there is no law forbid women from driving. During the Prophet era women rode horses and camels and even went to battle field to treat the wounded. So from where the Saudi derived the law forbid women to drive?

The recent killing of young woman in Ukraine by stoning was another event that tarnished the image of Islam. The perpetrators claimed what they had done was legal in Islāmic law. Again a claimed that have no legal basis in Islam. The world should know the stoning of the young woman is illegal in Islam. No person has the right to be judge, jury and executor in Islam. In Islam only the State can take any legal action for crime done. Even if under the true Islāmic law the woman would not be sanctions with death penalty. Death penalty in Islam only involved crime of highway robbery, rape, murder and adultery commit by married person. Even for the crime of apostasy a person can still be saved from death sentence. In Islam the legal process to find a person guilty of any crime is very delicate and time consuming unless the defendant plead guilty. Therefore what had happen in Ukraine has nothing to do with Islāmic law. The persons doing the killing are just a cold hearted persons having their owned personal agendas which under Islāmic law the State has the right to sanction death penalty for their crimes. In Islam there is no vigilante or to take the law in their owned hand. Islam rule through peace and justice not chaos and brutal force.  Human rights are the essential requirement to be called an Islamic country.

Lastly as a reminder to the citizen of the world don’t look to the country claiming as an Islāmic state because now none are practising what the Prophet Muhammad preached. In Islam an Islāmic country is a country that provides the needs of each citizen their right to speech, right to move, religious freedom guaranteed and the responsibility of states to non-Muslims. It also provide good relations and mutual help among all citizens and individual responsibility and government duty in upholding social justice. It also stated the duty of all parties toward bringing and upholding peace in the State. In Islam the Shura system (parliamentary system) is a place for the citizens to voice their demands and criticisms toward the government of the day. But the current situations most of the so called Islāmic country either lack some of the Islāmic principles or have none at all. The best example of a true Islāmic country is Madina during the creation of the Madina Charter by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Provide here link to Madina Charter the First Islāmic Constitution: http://socyberty.com/issues/madina-charter-the-first-islamic-constitution/

While I have developed a better understanding of philosophy and its role in law I consider that I am Student C. I was Student C at the start of semester and I am even more so now. I find that I genuinely embrace diversity as I listen to other people’s views on the world and everything in it. There is nothing more enjoyable than listening to people as they speak from their cultural perspective.

Philosophy and law do not usually mould together or so I thought, as I started this course. I had assumed that philosophy was something that only the Arts faculty took seriously as it understood its value. People often question whether philosophy is relevant or important to law and legal practice. I agree with Friedmann that;

Those lawyers who are unconscious of their legal theory are apt to do more harm than their more conscious colleagues. For their self-delusion makes it psychologically easier for them to mould the law in accordance with their beliefs and even prejudices without feeling the weight of responsibility that burdens lawyers with greater consciousness of the issues at steak.2

1 EV  Cherkasova, Philosophy as Sideshadowing: The Philosophical, the Literary and the fantastic’  in Carel and Gamez  (eds) What Philosophy Is (2004) Continuum, London, 203.

2 W Friedmann ‘Legal Theory and the Practical Lawyer’ (1941) 5 Modern Law Review 103, 103-104.

I think that lawyers are more likely to cause unnecessary problems for their clients then people who are more aware of the need to understand the world around them.  I agree with Margaret Davies that university lecturers often treat philosophy as a side issue or a token gesture as they impart their limited knowledge to the next generation of professionals.3 Students are rarely trained to consider philosophy as an important subject in its own right as well as a legitimate part of law.

I cannot say how glad I was when I discovered that my assumptions were wrong. I realised quite quickly philosophy was not only relevant, it was essential for a fairer society. Philosophy appears to be genuinely valued as a way to encourage students to be more tolerant, compassionate and a better advocate for minority groups. Lawyers have a habit of forgetting their training as they focus on making a small fortune. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was wrong. Southern Cross University staff show people that they value philosophy as a way to achieve justice for everyone rather than a select few. The University adopted Benjamin Disraeli’s attitude that ‘To be conscious that you are ignorant is a great step to knowledge.’4 I remember feeling relieved that I did not have to pretend to know more than I did.

I have always considered the process to justice to be a tedious one with little hope of ever achieving it. To quote my father ‘people receive British justice until the money runs out.’ I have reflected on this quote many times over the years and I have reached the conclusion that he was right. The rich have the resources to receive all the help they need to win their case while poorer people are left to fend for themselves.

I suppose I am a bit too cynical for my own good; however, I consider that legal

3 M Davies, Asking the Law Question(3rd ed, 2008) [135].

4 Benjamin Disraeli Lothair (1870) Leipzig, Tauchnitz

theory is very different from practice. Theoretically lawyers and judges treat

everyone the same; however, the reality is that minority groups are at the mercy of a white British-Australian system. My views on this subject have changed

little as I think that the system largely favours people with power and privilege. Occasionally poorer people receive justice; however, it is so rare that I think I can safely say that this assumption will not change. I think that the only way change is likely to occur is as Noel Preston says that;

[C]ommitment to a reflective, critical and transformative engagement with changing social and technological conditions by aiming to benefit those most disadvantaged in those contexts … [T]his means a commitment to reflect ethically and economic issues from the standpoint of the poor, not the rich; or race relations from the standpoint of the least powerful; or environmental questions from the most vulnerable species and so on.5

I think that if the authorities were genuinely willing to commit themselves to changing the legal system for everyone’s benefit that I would happily change my views of it.

Activity 2

I have long believed in justice for all life on earth. I have never actually stopped and thought about what it means. This course has encouraged me to stop and put my thoughts into words to help me understand what justice means. Justice provides people with the chance to leave a peaceful existence without being harmed. It means that people are treated equally no matter who they are. Justice is an idea or utopia that is unlikely to be achieved. I think that human nature will not permit the world to achieve justice as human greed is too strong to create a perfect society.

5 N Preston, Understanding Ethics (2nd ed, 2001) Federation Press 9.

I agree with Douzanis and Geary that justice is an intellectual topic to be

discussed and reflected upon before acting.6 Justice recognises that all living being beings have intrinsic value and that they should be allowed to live. I know I know that I am guilty of talking about justice from the comfort of home or at a cafe rather than physically acting to change the world. This course has helped me to appreciate the idea of justice even more than I already did. I admit that I am not an expert; however, I have read and reflected on what justice is as well as what it means to me.

Justice provides people with all of the basic necessities for life. It suggests that the natural world is balanced and peaceful without the fear of disruption, destruction and persecution. I think that people can learn to live with nature rather than against it as they strive for progress. I find that I am too passionate about creating a harmonious planet for all life on it. Perhaps I am naive; however, if wanting to protect the environment for all species is too idealistic than I will happily live in my own bubble. Simple actions such as redistributing the world’s natural resources would likely help to create an equal, equitable, global society.

Law and justice are confusing concepts at least they are for me as I find them to be fuzzy as I struggle to put my thoughts into words. I understand that the purpose of the exercise is to see what I know as well as whether there are any gaps in my learning. I consider law and justice to be separate entities that can be moulded together to achieve the ideal outcome for everyone. Law provides society with formal rules and regulations that tell people how to live their lives.

6 C Douzinas and A Gearey, Critical Jurisprudence: The Political Philosophy of Justice (2005) Hart Publishing, Oxford, 47.

As Parker suggests ‘the traditional positivist continues to dominate legal

scholarship.’7 Educators still focus on teaching people the rules rather than

providing their students with a wholistic view of law and the legal system.

There are also informal or implied laws that guide people and encourage them to be model citizens.

Legal authorities consider the formal rules from a variety of perspectives to ensure that people achieve the right result for the voiceless minority. I think that real justice is when judges base their decision on facts rather than culture, gender, religion, colour or a person’s socio-economic status in society. Theorists such as David Wood suggest that suggests ‘that the abandonment of authoritative standards offers us an opportunity to become truly ethical actors.’8 This suggests that people will have the freedom to think and feel what they ought to do rather than blindly follow words on a piece of paper. Formal rules can be adjusted and altered to include people in the legal process rather than oppress them. Language as Jacques Derrida suggests has various meanings and it can be used in numerous contexts.9 He believed that it could be used to help bridge the gap between the rules and people’s interpretation of them. I think that the Australian system needs to include non-anglo laws to reflect its modern multicultural society.

7 S Parker , ‘Deconstruction Manoeuvres of Postmodernity’ in S Parker, Reflective Teaching in the Postmodern World: A Manifesto for Education in Postmodernity (1999) Open University Press, Buckingham.

8 D Wood, ‘The Experience of the Ethical’ in R Kearney and M Dooley (eds), Questioning Ethics: Contemporary Debates in Philosophy (1999) Routledge, London, 105-119.

9 J Derrida, Of Grammartology (1976), trans Gayatri Chakrovorty Spivak, John Hopkins University and Baltimore.

Activity 3

My knowledge of traditional jurisprudence is hazy at best and minute at worst. I think that I need to read and think about what traditional jurisprudence is before I can begin to understand what is wrong with it. Margaret Davies suggests that traditional jurisprudence is rigid with little thought for alternative views.10 I agree with her as I think that the system is static with little or not thought of

inclusion in society. The Australian legal system is a complicate web that few people understand or have the time to unravel.

I think the main problem is that judges consider that everyone is fundamentally the same in the eyes of the law. Davies suggests that legal authorities rarely take culture and language into consideration when making their decision.11 I agree with her that legal authorities often impose their identity onto the very people that they are trying to help. The law was designed for white, middle aged, middle class, highly educated men to achieve order in a disorganised land. It can safely be said that the law was and to some extent still is, a boy’s club. The system poses problems as it is an institution that was created by men for their brothers with little of no thought for anyone else.

I think that the nation was open to rebellion and revolution as people recognised the need for change. The foundation of law consists of both traditional and modern elements to create the current legal system. I agree with Margaret Davies that that there is no absolute foundation of law.12 The foundation is flexible as it can be reshaped as attitudes change. I think that I do not quite

10 Davies,  n  3 [135].

11 Davies, n  3 [135].

12 Ibid.

appreciate how significant the problems are as I have no experience either as a client or as a legal practitioner. I find myself analysing and discussing the idea of law as a whole, solid, foundation as I try to understand it. I think that the law as an institution is fragmented as it is constantly interpreted and used to suit individuals, groups, as well was they wider community.

I think that I need to study this concept further to gain a better understanding of traditional jurisprudence as an abstract entity. The problems are not as clear as

theorists claim at least I found them to be ambiguous as I struggled to grasp

their meaning. I think that as future lawyers we will encounter the problems that Margaret Davies describes as we cope with the daily pressure that the system throws at us.13

Traditional jurisprudence provides a narrow view of whom and what law is. The law is arguably a user pays system as people with wealth will persist until they win their case. The rich can afford to wait as they use their resources to achieve the right outcome for them. Traditionalists consider that written laws are set in stone as they consider them to be gospel. The system prevents people from voicing their demands as the majority suppresses people who do not fit the nice, neat, package that the authorities create. Jurgen Habermas suggests that ethical validity is based on what a cultural group considers to be right.14 The traditional system is static and inconsistent with little chance of changing in the short-term. There is little room for compassion as the system focuses on the black and white facts before it.

13 Davies,  n  3 [135].

14 J Habermas, Postmetaphysical Thinking (1990), trans WM Hohengarten, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Activity 4

It is difficult to know what truth is as people have different views of what truth is as well as how it is measured. Charles Taylor suggests that people base their idea of truth on assumptions which they are forced to defend when necessary.15 The right to freedom, justice, the rule of law, a fair trial, the basic necessities of life and privacy are only some of the truth claims in society. A person’s values, beliefs, education, social status as well as life experience are influences by his or her cultural background. I think that truth is often given lip service while

people manipulate the law for their own ends. This is a cynical view; however, I suggest that it is an accurate one as the legal system fails the very people who need its help. I have reflected on this subject over the years however, even now I still struggle to understand what truth claims are and how you can equate them with knowledge.

Parents, educators and the legal system teach people that they have basic fundamental rights as human beings. The law prosecutes people who encroach on others and prevent them from living their lives. People have the freedom to express themselves without fear of punishment. It is important to stress that there are limits and I think people need to be aware that they need to communicate within the legal boundaries. The legal system provides protection for professionals to maintain their reputation.

I think that people do not always know what truth claims are let alone how they

are legitimated in society. I am aware that I took Australia’s truth claims for granted as I grew up. As an adult it is only now that I have seriously thought about my assumptions, beliefs and values that I had adopted over the years to

15 C Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity (1989), Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

see if they were valid. I think I have become more cynical as I have developed my ideas and gained more life experience. People are shown countless images of injustice on television not to be skeptical of law and legal practice. The media reinforces claims as it broadcasts stories locally and across the world to educate people about it.

Culture is an important factor when considering truth claims in Australia. Judges determine whether cultural differences contributed to each case they look at. Judges need to decide whether showing sensitivity is likely to cloud their verdict. Richard Wasserstrom suggests that legal authorities need to ignore

their personal ethical views in order to meet their client’s objectives.16 Judges

and lawyers need to leave their ethical views outside their office door as they focus on their client’s needs. Gender is also important as authorities need to ensure that everyone has the change to voice their views. Issues such as who as who has claims to truth who decides the kind of claims they have.

I think that it would be difficult for people to decide which factors to include in their criteria as there are so many to choose from. People organise their criteria based on their own agendas. I think that the authorities need to select factors such as education, wealth, class carefully to prevent errors. Indigenous heritage and native title are also important as they are used to determine land ownership, cultural traditions and property rights. Judges look at a person’s level of hardship and loss to see if they can use it as a contributing factor in his or her case.

16 R Wasserstrom, ‘Lawyers as Professionals: Some Moral Issues’ (1975) 5 Human Rights 1.

Activity 5

Anglo-Australian law makes decisions that are not always appropriate for people who require help. Peter Singer suggests that the legal system does not employ a utilitarian approach to law rather it has a narrow focus as though it is only for a select few.17 Legal principles usually apply to some people and not others. I think that legal principles are ideal in theory; however, they are rarely considered in practice. I find it difficult to fully appreciate the principles as I consider that they are used when it is convenient for legal practitioners to do so. It is difficult to embrace legal principles when you see or hear about people who lost when they should have won their case. Perhaps my cynicism is getting the better of me; however, I think that there is little room for serious decision making as they do not take everyone seriously.

Legal authorities try to show care and sensitivity to people who need their protection. The system focuses on rules to the extent that it almost neglects the very people who need help. I agree with Douzinas and Geary that legal practitioners need to understand law from an ethical perspective if they wish to create the ideal system.18 I think that philosophy provides people with the ability to care for their clients which ultimately makes them better lawyers. It provides professionals with the emotional maturity they need to show discretion and sensitivity to everyone.

17 P Singer, How  are we to Live? Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest (1993),  Melbourne,  Text  Publishing  Company.

18 Douzinas and Gearey, n 6 [47].

I think that our forefather’s legacy is prevalent in today’s legal system. People are still excluded and ignored as decisions are often biased towards particular individuals and organisations in society. Australian law will continue to evolve as judges become more aware of others who do not fit the traditional mould.

Philosophy has been included in the current legal system; however, I think that decision makers are inclined to adopt a traditional approach when considering their verdict.

The legal system often combines rules with a more sensitive approach when dealing with their cases. I consider that the tension between the formal and informal methods can be reconciled to achieve a fairer outcome. Rules are used to interpret sensitive cases to ensure that people are treated with dignity. I have pondered over this subject, yet I cannot reach a clear conclusion about it. The law does not always respond well to sensitive cases as it focuses too heavily on rules and logic at the expense of the person before it. People can receive lighter sentences or be allowed to return home as their circumstances are taken into consideration.

Legal authorities often employ psychologists and other medical experts to determine whether someone is fit for trial. This is a sign that legal professionals

wish to use the evidence to paint a positive picture of their client. Judges often

search for exceptions to the rules to help them view the case from a wider angle. I found that the course material gave me an insight into law as a more flexible system than I had assumed. I had mistakenly considered that modern lawyers still focused on formal rules rather than a philosophical approach to law. It surprised me that the tension could easy as legal practitioners combine and reconcile the two methods.

They believe that this problem could be greatly improved if state licensing was enacted.  They claim that attorneys would feel more confident hiring paralegals who passed state licensing tests.  In addition, it would protect consumers by guaranteeing a certain level of proven ability.  Plus, the licensing body could aid in maintaining and preserving high-quality work by issuing sanctions for failing to maintain standards.

In today’s paralegal market, there are no real set standards.  An outspoken supporter of state-by-state licensing, Hope Viner Samborn who is a lawyer and faculty member at Loyola University Institute for Paralegal Studies, claims, “Now anyone can call himself or herself a paralegal or legal assistant.  No state licenses these professionals.”  (ABA Journal, December 1992).

Requirements for licensing is another area of debate.  Samborn states, “For licensing, states should require paralegals to take a practical proficiency test, to pass character evaluations, and to meet such minimum educational requirements as a bachelor’s degree from an accredited institution.  In addition, states should enact criminal penalties for individuals who…fail to meet stringent licensing requirements.”  (ABA Journal, Dec. 1992)  It’s reasonable to assume that her thoughts and ideas are representative of her pro-licensing peers.

Part of the requirement debate is centered around the numerous paralegal courses being offered on the market.  The length, depth, and course work in these programs vary greatly.  Samborn points out that “As of August 1992, only 162 of the more than 600 paralegal programs met the ABA’s stringent educational standards for program approval.”  (ABA Journal, Dec. 1992)

Another claim of supporters involves licenses offering legitimacy to paralegals.  Many have suggested that a two-tier system consisting of top-tiered lawyers and bottom-tiered paralegals will be the future of legal representation.  An ABA Gallop poll summarized the situation:  “By licensing paralegals through the same agencies as lawyers, the profession would, in effect, take on a two-tier appearance.  For paralegals, the entry tier would be the more form-oriented procedures lawyers say they should be allowed to handle.”  (ABA Journal, Dec. 1993)

Opponents believe that mandatory state licensing will increase legal fees to consumers.  Licensing fees and/or dues and a four-year college degree are expenses that would force paralegals to charge more to offset the costs.  It’s nearly unanimously accepted that consumers are seeking independent paralegal services to receive lower fees.  Lawyers use paralegals, too, as a means of charging clients less in fees.  When this information is coupled with the fact that most low-to-middle income families are unable to afford lawyer services it becomes a big issue.  Deborah Chalfie, HALT (Help Abolish Legal Tyranny) organization’s legislative director claims, “Everyone-including the ABA-agrees there’s a national crisis in access to legal services.  Study after study shows that even middle-income consumers can’t get affordable legal help.”  (ABA Journal, March 1991)

Opponents claim that licensing will fail to assure quality of work while supporters feel that licensing is the only way to achieve that assurance.  Chalfie states that there were “nearly 100,000 complaints filed against lawyers in 1989.  Obviously, there is no “public protection” guarantee provided by lawyer’s exclusive license to practice the law.”  (ABA Journal, March 1991)

Her fellow HALT member, Theresa Meehan Rudy, supports this claim of licensing not equating to high-quality professional standards.  Rudy states, “Studies of licensing in professions…prove that schemes such as these do little to protect the consumer from unscrupulous or incompetent practitioners” and “…meeting the general qualifications for a license…is not sufficiently related to being a good paralegal”.  (ABA Journal, December 1992)

Lastly, opponents claim that licensing will limit the number and diversity of paralegals.  To switch from a system where most skills are learned from on-the-job training to requiring a four-year degree for an entry-level position is a major difference.  It stands to reason that the number of paralegals would dramatically decline.  With college enrollment statistics favoring upper-to-middle class whites, the diversity of paralegals would surely be affected by requiring a bachelor’s degree in order to take the state licensing exam.

Whether licensing will be required in the future or not, this debate realizes the growing and changing role of paralegals in the legal profession.  The duties required of a vast amount of modern paralegals reaches far beyond the role of a secretary or receptionist.  An increasing amount of work is being handled by these professionals, and independent paralegals are fulfilling that workload without the supervision of an attorney.

I believe that state-by-state licensing will be required by an increasing number of states.  I don’t know if all states will ever require it, but I do believe that California will not be the only state that makes it mandatory, especially for independent paralegals who do work directly with the public without lawyer supervision.  Although, I believe that the future of the profession is headed in that direction, I do not believe that it should be a requirement for all paralegals.  If the state requires licenses and mandatory bachelor degrees among other prerequisites, the fees for paralegal services would dramatically increase.  The whole point of hiring paralegals to perform the rountine tasks of the job is to keep costs down for both lawyers and consumers.  The legal system has effectually shut-out the poorest people in the country and a large number of middle income families, as well.  These people deserve affordable help with their legal troubles and unlicensed paralegals are helping them achieve it.

When the country was going good most of the flaws in our society were different.  Example maybe officers of the church were doing a lot of wrong.  Specifically Priests getting way with having sex with children(religious abuses).  But things ran awkwardly sort of good up to a decade ago.  The difference between before and now is the ability of the individual to pursue crime and ‘white collar’ criminals.   In the past high speed lead poison covered a lot of the problems.  Currently small claims and attorneys cover parts of the problem.  But by experience attorneys choose what is easy and profitable (duh…).  

The existing legal system is choking people’s ability to pursue wrongs against white collar crime.   It’s a feeding trough for unethical lawyers and other “fiduciaries” appointed by the courts to protect, many of whom nothing more than predators.  Try and file criminal charges against a court officer, executor or trustee and see where it gets you. 

1. Pressure authorities to prosecute ethical misconduct as the felony it is.  2.  Extend ‘grand jury’ rights to civil sector & given the same rights as the criminal ‘grand jury’.  Allow the public to present testimony & evidence to Community & watchdog groups, etc. These groups of laypeople would be able to allow indictments of criminals from -us denied justice. 

The jury of Alabama awarded Hithon $1 million for his case.

In 2005, the US Appeals Court ordered another trial for the same case. The reason for this is because they found no evidence of racial discrimination (or I suppose, discrimination in general) for referring to a man as “boy.” Sure, it’s disrespectful, but since Hithon’s case was most likely directed towards the racial aspect, the court decided that unless a “racial modification” was made to the expression, such as “white boy” or “black boy,” it did not count as being racist.

Then, in 2007, the court tried the case yet again. This time, they gave Hithon over $1 million.

Now in 2010, the case is once again back to the appeals court in Atlanta, GA.

Ah, the confusing aspects of our legal system…