The end of personal responsibility

So fat people are suing McDonalds and other fast food providers for making them fat; and now alchoholics are suing liquor companies for not warning them that booze is dangerous.

Why is it that our court system releases the plantiff in these cases from any and all personal responsibility, but says that the defendant must have a prescient level of knowledge and awareness. For the most part, laws should be intended to protect us from each other, not from ourselves.

The court system is in dramatic need of reform. I think that in civil cases, there needs to be a common sense sniff test before the case goes to trial. I think that the defendant shouldn't be responsible for the stupidity of the plantiff. And I think that the loser should have to pay the whole shibang. If I sue McDonalds because their fries are addictive and I lose, I should have to pay all of McDonalds' costs associated with my lawsuit.

EDIT: Ignore me from this point on. Sometimes I am a raving lunatic.

In the criminal justice system, I think that punishment should match the crime. If you rape someone, you should be strapped to a table and be mechanically raped by a machine. If you strangle four people, I think that you should be choked to unconsciousness four times, and revived after each of the first three. It's not 'Cruel and Unusual'. You did it to someone else, so, in your eyes, it obviously isn't 'cruel' or 'unusual'. Get convicted and sent to jail and then want to appeal? It's double or nothing.

I''m completely with you Johnny ... right up til you jumped off the cliff with that last paragraph.

I kind of hope you just didn''t think it all the way through. Here''s just one example of where your idea is fundamentally terrible ...

""Oh, um Mr. Johnson we just found through DNA testing that you didn''t actually rape that girl. Sorry about the whole rape machine thing. Tough luck!""

Eye for an eye leaves the world blind. A shame more people don''t realize that.

Hey, why not? It worked out pretty good for smokers. Aside from the warning''s over the last 30 years, how were they supposed to know it could cause cancer?

""Oh, um Mr. Johnson we just found through DNA testing that you didn''t actually rape that girl. Sorry about the whole rape machine thing. Tough luck!""

:rotflmao:

Elysium...I know. The last paragraph is something I think would reduce crime dramatically though. The fact is that there is a lot of crime because there is a lack of accountability, and the risks of crime typically outweigh the potential punishment.

And sure, it would be wonderful if no innocent people ever got sent to jail. And with the current improvements in technology, we are starting to have the technical capabilities to reduce errors (just look at CSI :D). But I don''t agree with the logic that it better that twenty guilty people go free than one person be punished.

But I digress. My topic was solely about civil litigation. Maybe we should sue trial lawyers for making litigation so addictive...

We should put a cap on the amount of lawyers we allow into the system. The more we have, the more they want to try and <i>change</i> laws, rather then <i>intrepret</i> them.

Only allow the top 1% of all law graduates to take the bar...take the top 10% of scores and give them a license.

The difference between personal injury and a public defender is huge. We need talent at the latter but have too many of the former.

JMJ: weren''t you the one declaring christianity superior to Islam because we have the new testament and the Islam really needs one? An eye for an eye is a methodology(EDIT:sp?) of the old testament btw ;).

Also I really doubt this works. The middle east already (or rather still) has sanctions like stoning people or cutting their extremities off. I don''t see an all time low crime rate in these countries...

The only thing that will help in the long run to lower the crime rates is prevention. And that starts with having parents learn how to treat their children properly. You''d be surprised what a difference nice and attend parents make. Downside of this is that there are no short term results in this method, so well would rather end up in your version of punishment, because the people in charge think it will help.
Not really comparable but look at the RIAA. They reall think sueing their customers, because they downloaded some songs on the internet will help them gaining sales....

The only thing that will help in the long run to lower the crime rates is prevention. And that starts with having parents learn how to treat their children properly. You''d be surprised what a difference nice and attend parents make.

Not at all. I agree with you on that point. But the other thing that parents (should) do is introduce discipline and accountability to their children. And no, I am not (quite) as bloodthirsty as I sound. I was trying to make a point.

As far as my being one of the people that said Christianity was better than Islam, I stand by that, and don''t think either point is contradictory. The rule of law and Christian tradition both call for a standard of behavior towards your fellow man. I think if you commit a violent crime against another person, you forfeit those same protections. Which is why I have no problem with self-defense and think it should be legal to set lethal traps against intruders (Lawyeron''s points on their illegality notwithstanding). On the other hand, Islam''s standards of behavior are, when practiced literally, abhorrent.

And yes, punishment works just fine. The punishment just has to present a significant negative deterrent when compared to the possible gain from breaking the law.

Which, again, leads back to my original point. Don''t like your life? Blame someone else, hire a lawyer and retire rich. Where is the downside? There needs to be a punishment (i.e. risk) involved in bringing civil suits. It won''t stop the justified ones, but it would put a damper in the stupid ones that clog the court systems.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

And yes, punishment works just fine. The punishment just has to present a significant negative deterrent when compared to the possible gain from breaking the law.

Oh yes, the death penalty really deters all those serial killers out there. Oh wait, if they''re white and can afford to get a competent lawyer, they''ll just get life in prison. Never mind.

Which, again, leads back to my original point. Don''t like your life? Blame someone else, hire a lawyer and retire rich. Where is the downside? There needs to be a punishment (i.e. risk) involved in bringing civil suits.

I want to agree, actually, but don''t. I think the value of our legal system is the openess with which one can issue grievances, and the frivolous suits are a necessary downside to the very worthwhile system we''ve established. Johnny, you''re always talking about the give and take of things - a position I admire and agree with - and I think you''ve got to see that here. There is no solution, as you might point out, that will maintain a fair civil court system and penalize those who are just trying to make a buck.

Without addressing the slippery slope of what is frivolous and who gets to decide, there''s the larger issue of power and potential corruption. It''s critical for the way of life I value that a single man of moderate means be able to hold massive corporations accountable when appropriate, and to establish penalties that thwart that process only strengthens those with the most to gain. That is, discouraging people from addressing genuine grievances - because not every legitimate case is won, a serious issue for susch a system - is tantamount to encouraging corruption.

I agree there needs to be more personal responsibility, but this would not be the place to fight for that.

That kind of system was used in Europe during the middle ages I believe, although they even went a step further sometimes (accuse someone of something punishable by say... death, get busted for making false accusations, be punished in exactly the same way the accused would have been). I dunno if it would work, you also could for example put tabs on the maximum amount of money that would be allowed to be claimed by a single person or let cases go through a test process first.

The death penalty isn''t as effective of a deterrent as it could be because it takes too long to administer.

If the death penalty were administered quickly, instead of 8-10 years after the crime occurred, it would be much more effective. It would have little impact as a deterrent on crimes of passion, but people don''t get the death penalty for that anyway.

If you ask me, and you haven''t, personal responsibility died a long time ago with the Twinkie defense. Since then, coming up with someone else to blame is a hallmark of deflecting attention from yourself. School shootings? Blame guns! Blame video games! Blame The Matrix! Blame the parents! Just don''t bother blaming the actual shooters, they''re blameless.

It''s critical for the way of life I value that a single man of moderate means be able to hold massive corporations accountable when appropriate, and to establish penalties that thwart that process only strengthens those with the most to gain. That is, discouraging people from addressing genuine grievances - because not every legitimate case is won, a serious issue for susch a system - is tantamount to encouraging corruption.

I agree Elysium. In cases of genuine malfeasance or negligence, it is crucial that the aggrieved party have a method of remedy. But there needs to be a level of personal responsibility involved. If I use a product in a manner that is was never intended for, or in a manner that goes against both common sense and safety warnings, I should forfeit my right to sue for damages. And that just isn''t the case. The ''victim'' is excused from any and all common sense and the defendant is assumed to be practically omniscient in their ability to predict ways that the ''victim'' could be stupid. That is not merely ""a necessary downside to the very worthwhile system we''ve established"". That is blatant abuse of the system.

The case of the woman that got burned by the McDonalds'' coffee is a perfect example. Hmm...I put hot coffee in between my legs and then try to drive. Then, when something happens and the coffee spills...it''s obviously McDonalds'' fault. Thank you, I''ll take my $2.6 mil.

A company should be responsible for taking all reasonable precautions for making their product safe. When new dangers are discovered, the company has a responsibility for modifying their product to take those new dangers into account. Failure to do either is negligent and should be punished. But the consumer should be held to just as stringent a standard. If you use a product, it should be in the manner it was intended, and with some degree of common sense applied. Failure to do either means that you forfeit your right to hold someone else accountable. Don''t like it? Don''t use the product.

Suing someone because you trip on ice outside their house/place of business is almost criminal. Look where you''re walking for pete''s sake.

Reforming the civil system by increasing the scrutiny applied to the plantiff is a good place to start.

If you ask me, and you haven''t, personal responsibility died a long time ago with the Twinkie defense. Since then, coming up with someone else to blame is a hallmark of deflecting attention from yourself. School shootings? Blame guns! Blame video games! Blame The Matrix ! Blame the parents! Just don''t bother blaming the actual shooters, they''re blameless.

Christ almighty. I agree with Rat.

Quick Elysium, lock this thread so we have proof and neither of them can change their mind

Of course, JMJ will argue that the Twinkie defense was a liberal invention when in fact it was copped by former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White after he killed Mayor George Moscone and gay Supervisor Harvey Milk, who were about as liberal as you could get.

I think Rat Boy has a personal aversion to allowing JMJ (I like the initials too) to agree with him. Maybe it''s an allergy of some kind that induces anaphylactic shock. Might I, in that case, encourage a slow regime of desensitization. Perhaps agree only that the sky is occasionally some unspecified shade of blue, or that oxygen is an important component in respiration for human physiology, or something.

I know Elysium addressed this, but it has to be said again. Making plaintifs suffer the same penalty they are seeking against the defendents makes no sense whatsoever. The whole point of this is to take power away from big corporations. If I had to pay their legal fees if I lost, they could spend $50 million dollars, find a legal loophole, I''d lose, and then I''d have to pay their fees when I myself could only raise a miniscule fraction of that amount to present my own case? That is clearly nonsense.

Further, your use of the word ""common sense"" is an argumentative sieve. While it''s a convenient thing to say, each and every one of us uses dozens of produts every day that we ourselves couldn''t construct. We don''t know exactly how these things work, and we don''t want to know. We trust that someone is looking out for our wellbeing and not selling us a cellphone that will give us brain cancer after 10 years. We trust that if someone does market a device that gives brain cancer, it won''t look like a cell phone so that we won''t put it against our heads when we hear a single channel electronic beep version of Beethoven''s 9th.

Our society depends on the trust that if someone puts out a dangerous product, they take some level of responsibility for it. It all comes back to that phrase ""common sense"". If someone makes a lawnmower designed for clipping grass that is shorter than 2"" while the blade flies off if the grass is longer than that, they damn well better make it plainly known via warning labels and stickers all over everything, even though the usage of this device is common sense to them. It is indeed a shame that this necessary trust gets abused, but as Elysium said (in different words): you don''t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The whole point of this is to take power away from big corporations

Absolutely not. And, if that is what you actually mean, then I think it is indicitive of the problem. The point of civil liability is to ensure responsible behavior on the part of all parties involved. To use your example, if I make a cell phone and I don''t know that it causes brain cancer, how can I possibly warn you or be held liable? If studies come out that prove that it does cause brain cancer, I have an obligation to try and make my product as safe as possible and warn you of the risks involved. If you then choose to use the product, and subsequently develop brain cancer, your choice to use the product trumps your right to sue.

Negligence and malfeasance should always be punished. But there are two parties involved, and saying that the end user has no responsibility at all is reprehensible.

Well an eye for an eye kinda breaks down in some instances as most perpetrators of crimes have little to compensate for what they take. For instance, how would you deal with a 10 year old car thief? Take away his bicycle? What about things like invlountary manslaughter? If the circumstances were that the driver accidentaly ran over someone, are you going to now run them over? What if the driver only broke the victims leg and you end up killing the driver in his punishment? Or vice versa, what if the driver killed someone and you only broke his leg in administering punishment? Would you run him over again and again until the punishment fit the crime? How are you going to reciprocate the consequences of someone guilty of insider trading? How are you going to punish child abuse? Are you going to slap the parents around once every couple days for years? Or are you going to determine the actual amount of slaps and do it all at once?

Blanket statements made out of frustration only lead to trouble unless expressed as such. I dont think anyone in this thread isnt frustrated with the lack of accountability nowadays. In leiu of all this evidence I dont see how anyone can argue this country is not spoiled. By and large we have to be compensated for any and every pain we suffer.

If the circumstances were that the driver accidentaly ran over someone, are you going to now run them over?

You have to accidentally run them over - very hard to enforce.

<3 <3 and 5 manbabies to ralcydan for making such a cool comment, let''s all make up and enjoy the humor that these forums always carry

edited for drunken spelling

You know, um...to bring this back to the article in the thread, people have been trying to sue the alcohol companies for years. Every time in the US it will always get thrown out of court because of the 21st Amendment, legalizing the sale and interstate transportation of booze. That creates a non-justiciable question for the courts. They always reject claims against against alcohol manufacturers.

Certain alcohol awareness groups have tried to tack alcohol companies onto wrongful death from drunk driving suits, but that never works. The approach was tried as soon as the plaintiff''s attorneys figured out how to do it to cigarette manufacturers. But courts won''t hear it because the Constitution says it''s okay to sell booze. Prohibition didn''t work once before, and the courts have taken that to heart.

I don''t know how that will pan out in the UK, however, which is lacking that constitutional amendment.

Edit: or any constitution for that matter.

I should have never expanded my original point to include criminal punishments. My eye-for-an-eye statements are actually only applicable to violent crimes, done with premeditation. Although, some people might go on a crime spree, if only because they really like the rape machine and can''t get one for home use....

Something for the makers of the real doll to consider, although these guys might have beat them to it.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

I have an obligation to try and make my product as safe as possible and warn you of the risks involved. If you then choose to use the product, and subsequently develop brain cancer, your choice to use the product trumps your right to sue.

Yes, exactly. But you''ve ended up saying that you have to warn me of the risks involved, while your initial post is saying that common sense is what''s needed, not warning labels.

What I''m saying is that there is no easily defined middleground that determines what is common sense. I want warning labels on things whose risk I can not ascertain by a quick visual inspection. However, the set of items whose potential for causing injury I can accurately assess is sure to be different from the person sitting next to me. So who picks what requires a warning label and what doesn''t, him or me?

Nah maddy, I think you and I are on the same page. My point is that the civil system today says that zero common sense on the part of the consumer is okay, and lack of omniscience on the part of the manufacturer is grounds for damages.

Warning you of dangers that can occur during the use of the product as it is intended, marketed and sold is the responsibility of the manufacturer. Harm that occurs when violating those safety warnings or when using the product in a manner never intended by the manufacturer falls on the user.

I agree that we''re on the same page, I''m just trying to be difficult here to play devil''s advocate, or, in this case, stick up for the system. The case with the McDonald''s coffee is illustrative of the problem, but it''s so exaggerated that it sometimes makes things seem clearer than they really are. In that case we all agree that an adult purchasing hot coffee should have more responsiblity than a child who does not know that hot things can and will burn him. That agreed assumption is risky, but since ""hot things burn skin"" is so well known a maxim, if not in those exact words, the risk appears benign. But when the danger is no longer something that all but a child would recognize, things become less clear.

I find myself in agreement with your stance regarding class action lawsuits against the tobacco and alcohol companies, but I can not explain away my leanings with one mighty quip because I do indeed want companies to take significant responsibility for their products. The last thing I want to do is put all the responsibility in the hands of the uninformed public (and I don''t mean that as a negative, but as a reality as per my earlier post). So where do I draw the line on product safety liability? My only answer is that I know it when I see it, and good legislation that is not.

No one said it was easy.

I''ll shut up because we are saying the same thing and talking inches of disagreement, not miles.

Ya know, I''ve always thought that televised crucifixion would get better ratings than American Idol...well, at least better than Big Brother...

And sorry for taking the thread back away from where it was intended, Bosephus