Why is our justice system so flawed?

Question

I think I might have some kind of idea. We base our laws on a document that was written almost 250 years ago, after that amount of time I think it's reasonable to assume that our country has changed enough to maybe think about making serious revisions? I know there are amendments, but still, they take so long to get passed that a lot of the good ones get lost in translation, while others that might not be such bright ideas get passed in a hurry due to a wartime society or whatever. Another reason is that we leave what was written in the Constitution to be interpreted by some jerk in a robe and some lawyers looking to get rich of their exploitation of it. So much time has passed that most of the ideas written in the Constitution can be warped with talk about new technology, knowledge, development of anything really. Why not start working on drafting a new set of ideas more pertinent to our new society instead of being stuck in the past?

I'd like to hear all of your ideas/input on this, please bear in mind it's just my opinion and I'm more than happy to listen and think about yours so give mine a chance as well.

Have at it!

Answer 1

I don't think a better document can be written. Sure, things have changed in the last 250 years, but when you get right down to it, it has the basics. Our constitution is so good other countries have based theirs on ours! Imitation is the best form of flattery.

Answer 2

Nothing is going to make any changes to Rule of Law or amendments to make way for a new trend or new world as long as those Dracula's or founding fathers, who seem to think the world revolves around them and their families.    

Answer 3

in the 60's and 70's liberals gave more rights to criminals in our country...now criminals aren't afraid of committing crimes...

Answer 4

When the Criminal has more rights than the Victim , and Excuses are made for the Criminal this is what you get . A Man breaks into your home and trips and breaks his leg while carrying out your stuff He can sue you , Or You shoot him for trying to mug you and He sues you , and wins . Don't believe it look up Bernard Getts .

Liberals are whats wrong , with their take a punk to lunch attitude . It's Not Little Johnny's fault He is a Criminal it's Societies , or his Teacher or the TV or anything but the truth Little Johnny is a Punk .

Answer 5

Our system may have flaws, but it is the finest system in the world.  

Answer 6

The document you refer to may be old, but it is truly great. It's one of the most wise legal documents in the history of man.

It is left open-ended by design, our Framers and Founding Fathers wanted the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be relevant to all times. They wanted us to define the articles according to our times.

The Constitution is also hard-to-edit in it's design, so that it's more difficult for partisan politicians to push something like "g*y marriage" or "abortion" or some other malleable issue doesn't pockmark our Constitution like it did with the 18th amendment.

What would you change it to anyhow? Wholly uninterpretable language that only causes problems? Allowing for issues that call for such are taken care of in law so that if they come under fire they can be fairly easily repealed (well, at least more-so than a Constitutional amendment).

The solution isn't revision, it's honoring and holding true what we have.

Answer 7

One first thing to note is that the Constitution provides only limited guidance for the structure and content of our legal system.  It guarantees certain fundamental rights for the governed and stipulates general legal protections (ex post facto, habeas corpus, jury trials, etc.), but the major elements of the justice system - courts, specifics of procedure, jurisdiction, and so forth - are determined by statutory law.  The Constitution may not be the best target for criticism of the justice system itself, depending on what your specific concerns.  What revisions do you think would be useful?

In any case, I think the Constitution works pretty well, for the most part.  The reasons have been well discussed.  It speaks in general terms, provides broad guidance and restrictions for the federal government and the states, and perhaps most importantly it has simply worked - mostly (the Civil War, provisions concerning slavery, and so forth are notable exceptions) - since its adoption.  The Constitution is a flexible document, open to (reasonable) interpretation.  You may see this as a weakness - a nasty judge can interpret the Constitution pretty much any way he wants, right? - but it hasn't been a problem, and for a number of good reasons:

-Judges are accountable for their actions (they can be impeached, some are elected, appellate/SCOTUS judges are subject to rigorous interrogations and reviews by Congress before appointment, etc).

-Most judges well-educated and principled (as in, they have a researched vision of the meaning of the Constitution, and they are taught and required to apply their judgments in good faith).

-Most of all, the worst judgments - those that highlight injustices in statutory or Constitutional law, or are simply unprincipled - can be reversed via amendment, new laws, new appointments, and so forth.  (Dred Scott, for example, was reversed by the 14th amendment.)

In the worst case, if a judge renders an opinion completely contrary to the meaning of the Constitution or the will of the people, the system can simply ignore it.  (This occurs very rarely - it's not good for the system - but it happened, for example, during the Civil War.)

One may suggest that the Constitution has resisted amendment because the procedure is too arduous to undertake.  This is so for a good reason.  A virtue of the Constitution is that it provides stability - we know what to expect of our government, and dramatic changes to the law can only be undertaken slowly.  Government cannot suddenly inflate or impose martial law - the Constitution forbids it.  Change must be gradual, enabling society to adapt.  Nonetheless, the procedure is not SO arduous that the Constitution cannot be amended if necessary.  Gross injustices permitted by the original Constitution (plus the Bill of Rights) - slavery, limitations on the vote for minorities and women, etc. - have been repaired through amendment.  Repeating the process is possible in the future if necessary.

This is an incomplete answer to your question - there is an awful lot to say about the Constitution - but in short, it simply works.  Dramatic change to the Constitution, or scrapping it entirely in favor of another framework, doesn't seem warranted.  The United States, in part due to the stipulations of the Constitution, is among the most successful nations in history.  Why fix it if it isn't broken?  If and until something seriously wrong with the Constitution can be identified demanding sweeping change, I don't think anything other than due vigilence, as always, is necessary.