Lawyers, should they make/write our laws?

[Old Rabbit]

Though it likely seems proper, should lawyers be lawmakers?

After all if a person who makes a living as a lawyer is likely to write laws that
favor their profession. Sounds like a conflict of interest to me. Just removing
themselves from the business of law doesn't change that fact.

Isn't it interesting that many laws are so grey, and contracts so complex. Would it
be to make a lawyer a needed commodity?

I realize that somethings are complex by nature, and require arbitration to be settled.
That is a good job for lawyers to deal with, and if they feel certain laws are needed,
that's fine. But for them to write the laws is a temptation to help themselves. Like a
fox building a hen house.

It seems the entire legal system of laws, those who make them, and courts are run
by lawyers. I wonder if a business of another kind could operate as it does. We are
expected to believe these people are working for our own good, but are they? I imagine
most are, but I am sure some don't. After all lawyers are human with human frailties.

I realize it's not likely to ever change, and perhaps it shouldn't, but I bet it's been
debated in legal colleges.  So anyone want to debate it here?

[cause the rat]

The creation and legislation of laws should be kept out of the privet sector. The privet sector doesn't have the checks and balances the government has in place to protect everyone from unfair legislation. For instance. The Red Cross will now allow gay men to donate blood. As long as they have not had any kind of relationship for a year or more. That's privet sector laws. Privet sector laws are usually self serving and don't have to fare to everyone. This isn't saying there aren't bad laws out there. It's up to everyone to get the bad laws out of the books. That would be a lot harder to do if they were all in the privet sector hands.





Sorry I accidently posted on your post. I clicked modify instead of quote. Old Rabbit.

[Old Rabbit]

The creation and legislation of laws should be kept out of the privet sector. The privet sector doesn't have the checks and balances the government has in place to protect everyone from unfair legislation. For instance. The Red Cross will now allow gay men to donate blood. As long as they have not had any kind of relationship for a year or more. That's privet sector laws. Privet sector laws are usually self serving and don't have to fare to everyone. This isn't saying there aren't bad laws out there. It's up to everyone to get the bad laws out of the books. That would be a lot harder to do if they were all in the privet sector hands.

I agree, but what I failed to make clear was that those who earn a living from how laws are
written and possibly benift from this activity should not be eligible to run for or be
appointed to a law makeing body.

Let's have our legislators be citizens who are not in the business of law. I am not saying all
lawyers are bad, but the temptation for lawyers to write laws in such a way to benifit themselves
or others in their profession is rather great. We can change laws when they are bad, but a good
law can be written in such a way that one needs a lawyer to understand or how to apply it. It's often
harder to change how a law is written since many people look at the point of the law rather
than the language of it.

Lawyers should not worry, they will always be needed, as they have since ancient times. So
long as there are three people in the world. Two to argue, and a lawyer to arbitrate.   

[animagusurreal]

According to "Back to the Future II", "The justice system moves swiftly in the future now that they've abolished all lawyers." That scene took place on October 21, 2015, so we should expect that to happen any time now .

Seriously though, this is an interesting topic. It's kind of a Catch-22 - in order to make laws in the current system, you'd probably have to study law, and if you've done that, you're likely to become a lawyer. However, this also leads to the conflict of interest mentioned in the OP.

[Old Rabbit]

According to "Back to the Future II", "The justice system moves swiftly in the future now that they've abolished all lawyers." That scene took place on October 21, 2015, so we should expect that to happen any time now .

Seriously though, this is an interesting topic. It's kind of a Catch-22 - in order to make laws in the current system, you'd probably have to study law, and if you've done that, you're likely to become a lawyer. However, this also leads to the conflict of interest mentioned in the OP.

As with any subject people hire others to help them decide the best route. Once a problem
requiring a law was determined and how it is to be written would be decided. Those with law
experience could be consulted, then after a few suggestions they could choose the one
easiest to understand.

The law makers being non lawyers should be good at this. There would be problems with
wording I am sure. But law makers have that problem now on occasion, and have to make
changes due to legal decisions.