Can There Be 'Justice' Without Lawyers ?

[mongers]

Prompted by the article below about genocide 'trials' in Rwanda I thought I'd ask the question it prompt in my mind:

Can there be 'justice' without lawyers ?

Oh and what about considering the question, was there 'justice' before lawyers are arrived ?

Rwanda 'gacaca' genocide courts finish work

18 June 2012 Last updated at 13:00

Rwanda's community courts, known as gacaca, have finished their work, after 10 years of trying those accused of involvement in the 1994 genocide.

The courts were set up to speed up the prosecution of hundreds of thousands of genocide suspects awaiting trial.

Human rights group say the gacaca fell well short of international legal standards.

About 65% of the close to two million people tried have been found guilty, according to latest government figures.
......

Community courts were set up to clear the backlog - and once a week the so-called gacaca met in villages across the country, often outdoors in a marketplace or under a tree.

The BBC's Prudent Nsengiyumva in the Rwandan capital, Kigali, says one of the main aims of the gacaca was to achieve truth, justice and reconciliation among Rwandans. Gacaca means to sit down and discuss an issue.

The hearings gave communities a chance to face the accused and give evidence about what really happened and how it happened.

Our correspondent says many people in Rwanda say this process have helped to mend the wounds of the past.

But the use of traditional grassroots courts to try complex genocide cases was also controversial - previously the gacaca had only been used to settle local disputes.

More than 160,000 judges were elected from among communities - but they lacked legal qualifications.

The Rwandan government says about two million people went through the gacaca system - final official figures about how many were found guilty are yet to be released, but data from two years ago points to a conviction rate of about 65%.

.........

Our reporter says most Rwandans do not openly criticise the gacaca system.

But local and international human rights groups have expressed concern about its fairness because trials were held without defendants having access to qualified lawyers.

The courts' closure leaves many unanswered questions, our correspondent says.

Full article here:
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18490348

[garbon]

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by justice?

[Viking]

Lawyers exist for the purpose of preventing a party to a trial from losing because he doesn't know the rules or has bad social skills.

Most traditional legal systems are simple and intended to be simple enough for all members of that society to understand. When the possibility for swaying a jury or panel of judges exists rhetoric becomes relevant and you might hire Cicero to sway the jury.

Are the gacaca trials confusing or complex? Obviously not. Can the judges be swayed, well obviously, they are basically a jury of your betters.

The issue here is not so much lawyers, since defendents will have friends and allies who can speak to the judges on their behalf (which is the role a lawyer would play in this kind of trial anyway).

To the best of my knowledge these trials result in minimal sentences which mainly stress atonement rather than retribution. Apology, compensation and ritual humiliation rather than prison or "civilized" punishments.

[Barrister]

Lawyers exist for the purpose of preventing a party to a trial from losing because he doesn't know the rules or has bad social skills.

I would say that lawyers and courts exist to try and make 100% sure that you do not get the wrong result.  So there are numerous safeguards and fallbacks put into place to make everything as fair as possible.

But those safeguards do of course make it an incredibly expensive and inefficient system.

You can certainly have a simpler system and usually get the right result.

[garbon]

Lawyers exist for the purpose of preventing a party to a trial from losing because he doesn't know the rules or has bad social skills.

I would say that lawyers and courts exist to try and make 100% sure that you do not get the wrong result.  So there are numerous safeguards and fallbacks put into place to make everything as fair as possible.

But those safeguards do of course make it an incredibly expensive and inefficient system.

You can certainly have a simpler system and usually get the right result.

That's a very generous view of lawyers.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I think lawyers have spent a great deal of time legislating away to ensure that Justice can't exist without them.

[CountDeMoney]

was there 'justice' before lawyers are arrived ?

Yes, but not the kind we'd like now.

[Malthus]

I always thought it would be cool to being back "oath-swearing" and trial by combat, myself. 

[CountDeMoney]

I think lawyers have spent a great deal of time legislating away to ensure that Justice can't exist without them.

True, but at least in our system that we've developed, the difference between the concepts of the objective truth versus the legal truth used in our adversarial system unfortunately requires the use of lawyers.

Christ, even the ancient Greeks had curse tablets addressed to lawyers.  So even the ancients had to put up with their bullshit.   

[Ed Anger]

Lawyers are scum. Except for my jew lawyer. 

[Neil]

The lawyers have overreached themselves.  Because the lawyers are the enemies of civilized people, this is probably a bad thing.

The law schools and major firms need to be sterilized.  If that means we have to lose Ideologue, so be it.

[FunkMonk]

The lawyers have overreached themselves.  Because the lawyers are the enemies of civilized people, this is probably a bad thing.

The law schools and major firms need to be sterilized.  If that means we have to lose Ideologue, so be it.

[Viking]

Lawyers exist for the purpose of preventing a party to a trial from losing because he doesn't know the rules or has bad social skills.

I would say that lawyers and courts exist to try and make 100% sure that you do not get the wrong result.  So there are numerous safeguards and fallbacks put into place to make everything as fair as possible.

But those safeguards do of course make it an incredibly expensive and inefficient system.

You can certainly have a simpler system and usually get the right result.

On that note, I will remind you that seat belts and cup holders exist to try and make 100% sure that you do not die in a car accident.

[dps]

I would say that lawyers and courts exist to try and make 100% sure that you do not get the wrong result. 

The courts, I'll buy, but frankly I'm a bit stunned that a someone trained in an adversarial legal system would take that view of the role of lawyers.

[Barrister]

Lawyers are scum. Except for my jew lawyer. 

Jew lawyers are overrated.  You want yourself a Uke lawyer.