In the last few decades, it has become common for Americans to lash out at the legal system; politicians and especially lawyers have become targets of contempt and scorn. Though practicing law or being in politics are prestigious careers in the US, many Americans look down on lawyers or people who work for the government. However, this anti-lawyer bias is entirely unjustified, as I am about to show.Though some Americans probably believe that the world would be better without lawyer, the truth is exactly the opposite. Before federal legal systems or in pioneer societies, government did not regulate how justice was carried out. The result? Dueling. As history buffs may remember, in the 1500’s-1800’s people carried dueling pistols with them, and nobles had more baroque, ornately decorated versions of the same. But these pistols were not simply ornaments—dueling was the common practice to settle disputes. As federalism began to increase and pioneer societies began to wane, courts began to replace dueling (though the practice did not end until the 1800’s; even President Andrew Jackson was a dueler, and he even participated in a duel during his presidency). My point is simple: which is better, dueling or a legal system? Though a few rugged individualists would boldly assert their support for the former, most Americans support the latter. When we decided to settle disputes by seeking the truth rather than with guns, we took a step towards a better, more advanced civilization, which lawyers have helped us reach.
Why, then, do we enjoy verbally abusing these people if they do so much for us? The main reason is the anti-intellectualism that is deeply ingrained into American culture. Lawyers have become grouped in with the “elite,” which causes many Americans to fear and hate them. Also, some of this bias comes from people’s negative personal experiences with the legal system. For example, if one person loses a court case, that person will probably have some pent-up choler, which can cause this irrational hatred of lawyers and politicians. Since this kind of bias is very contagious, it does not surprise me at all that many Americans have this anti-lawyer bias even if they have never been in court themselves.
What can we do about this? Very little, I’m afraid. There is no practical way to rid the US of the anti-intellectualism that has been imbedded in our culture for decades. Fortunately, this is not a very important social issue compared to many of the others I have discussed on this blog, so I am not too worried about this one. However, I hope that all Americans eventually come to realize what the legal system does for them, and give lawyers the appreciation they deserve.
4 comments:
I agree with mostly everything you said. I'm just pretty sure I read somewhere that dueling didn't actually result in death very often. People missed a lot. I guess just because you owned a gun didn't mean you knew how to use it.
That's probably true; those guns don't look very accurate. But overall, I think it's still better to settle disputes with lawyers rather than with guns.
Neither dueling nor the legal system is better.
I bet I know how the legal system began. Two men decided to duel for justice. They agreed to stand back to back and take 10 paces out, then turn around and shoot.
Man 1: Takes five steps and starts to take his sixth step but falls over dead from a gunshot wound in his back.
Man 2: He took five steps and turned around and shot the other man.
Man 2 became the first lawyer known to America, and probably taught the first law school student the tricks of the trade. Tell 'em to take 10 steps.....
Dueling was no longer required. Why should it be? All they had to do was set up the laws to cater to lawyers and walla! It's a lawyer's world and the rest of us only get to take five paces before we're shot down.
You bring up an interesting point: the legal system is often stricken by corruption and bureaucracy. But if both dueling and lawyers are not the way to go, what is the best way for people to settle their disputes?
Post a Comment