The goal is to make the public believe that every claim is ruining our economy. The advocates for immunity made claims of rampant litigation and argued that lawsuits would be the final straw to destroy small businesses in Nevada. I asked several of these advocates to show me the proof of the widespread litigation in Nevada and on a national level. I never received a response. My investigation confirmed the following as of July 13, On a national level, there were 3, complaints on file throughout the United States.
Of these, there were 6 medical malpractice claims, 36 wrongful death claims, 11 personal injury claims and labor and employment claims of which were wrongful termination.
What were the majority of claims? Additionally, some are lobbying for a victim who loses their case to pay all legal fees to a defendant. Power is being moved from the people back to the hands of the government. These movements that eat away at our liberty are meant to ensure practicality and efficiency. Are there ways we should improve the system, and are there faults in juries? We can acknowledge that. But the overarching and fundamental principle we MUST focus on is the same one the founders did.
We must prefer liberty over efficiency. Liberty is exactly what the 7th amendment upholds. But, in the past, juries, not judges, decided these types of cases in which the party bringing the lawsuit could receive money. Juries also heard new claims created by the English parliament for which the remedy of money damages was available. The Supreme Court has shifted other authority from juries. In eighteenth-century England, a judge could not take a case away from the jury under these circumstances.
A judge would assess the sufficiency of the evidence only after a jury trial. If there was insufficient evidence of the claim, the judge would order a new trial before another jury. For a judge to throw a case out of court, specific circumstances were required and these rarely occurred.
For example, see the English case of Gibson v. Hunter , Eng. As a result of this shift in power, the jury cannot properly protect against abuses of governmental power.
The civil jury, unlike the traditional branches of government, has no ability to protect its own power—for example, by convening itself and deciding cases. If the English eighteenth-century historical connection is not restored, the branches will continue to take cases from juries, and juries will hear few cases in federal court.
See Suja A. Juries also decide few cases in state court. As described in the joint statement, many state constitutions guarantee a jury trial in certain civil cases. An important question concerns whether the U.
Constitution itself requires juries in civil cases in state courts. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, if a right is deemed fundamental, states are required to protect the right. The Supreme Court has decided that the civil jury trial right is not a fundamental right, so states are not obligated to hold civil jury trials.
However, the Court has acted differently with respect to other rights. Except for other jury rights, every other right in the Bill of Rights that the Court has considered has been determined to be a fundamental right. For example, recently in the case of McDonald v Chicago , the Court recognized the right to bear arms as a fundamental right that states must protect. As a result, under the authority of the U. Constitution, states should hold jury trials in all types of cases, including small claims matters, where states currently do not require juries.
The civil jury today is almost extinct. Changes to the way courts apply the Seventh Amendment are not going to revive the institution. Civil jury trial—and the process leading up to it—is so long, expensive, and unpredictable that almost no parties want to use it.
Parties would rather have a decision by a judge, or, more often, reach an agreement and settle the case. Civil jury trial has always had serious shortcomings. These have only become deeper with time, and reform cannot solve them. This is why the civil jury either has never existed or has virtually disappeared all over the world, including in the United States. It would be better to repeal the Seventh Amendment and to focus on improving investigation of facts and decision-making in civil cases.
The joint statement explains that Americans at the time of declaring independence valued the civil jury mainly for a political reason.
After the Revolution, that political reason became much weaker. Colonial and revolutionary Americans praised the civil jury for its ability to nullify, or refuse to follow, hated British laws—especially laws about taxes. While Americans were under British rule, juries were a way for Americans to govern themselves.
After independence, the American people formed the federal and state republics and governed themselves through elected officials in legislatures and the executive. Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. The 7th Amendment.
Thanks to the 7th click to enlarge Why does it matter? Social Media Sponsored by.
0コメント