|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
Report Comment
"Why not a computerized lawyer?
According to one commentator on NPR, a huge majority of Pro Se petitioners (those who can’t afford lawyers and try to file their own lawsuits) get thrown out of the courts, not necessarily on the merits of their case, but on their technical construction. In Federal Courts, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require those judges to give Pro Se petitioners a break. Federal Judges then get around the rules by quoting them and stating that they are still not obliged to make the petitioner’s cases for them. This gives them the excuse to pick any one small technical error and pronounce that the petitioner has not “stated a case” or “made a claim”. And ninety times or more out of hundred, the petitioner doesn’t know enough either to correct the alleged error or to dispute the judge.
Problem solved. One more case the judge doesn’t have to deal with, especially one that will take more time because the petitioner is not particularly skilled in making legal arguments or sticking to rules and formats. Or perhaps even so traumatized by an experience that just dealing with abusive lawyers from the other side is nearly impossible. Did the petitioner suffer massive and unjust deprivations of civil liberties and rights? Not the judge’s problem.
Wait a minute here. We have got massively complicated computer software that helps people to figure taxes, make medical differential diagnoses, put icons on your computer screen and fight computer-graphic alien monsters. It can’t be that impossible to create software that would guide a Pro Se petitioner through all the laws, case laws, evidence and witnesses to fill out court documents that would comply with all the applicable rules and standards. Not to mention save the poor, beleaguered judges all their precious time deciding how to scotch a case.
Of course the lawyers will object. That’s what they do, and don’t we all love them for it. Just remember the last time you tried to find a lawyer who would fight for you when you had almost nothing, and write your Congressional Representative and Senators tomorrow. If someone can start a company like YouTube or Google with a few thousand dollars and a garage, imagine what could be done with just a few million in government money (chump change to agencies like NSA or DoJ or DARPA) to develop that kind of software. Even better, a modest continuing budget to make it supported freeware, like Linux, along with U.S. Government certification of its correctness and effectiveness.
"
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
