Design of Legal Systems
For centuries, the design of the legal structure in the United States of America has been a debate among many scholars. Some scholars have championed their opinions on some legal issue that have apparent faults or are unfair to certain parties. Depending on the point and the perspective that the scholars argue from, one can be able to ascertain if their arguments are true or false.
This paper analyzes the different views by two great scholars about the design of the legal structure in the United States of America. The two scholars whose views will be focused on are Roscoe Pound and Marc Galanter in a bid to establish the grounds for their various arguments. Different courts in the United States of America hear and determine thousands of cases are every single day. From the big numbers of pending cases in the courts, it is evident that a majority of people rely on the judicial systems for justice. However, in analyzing it efficiency, most people end up praising the judicial system or criticizing it depending on the outcome of the hearings.
According to Marc Galanter’s argument, the legal structure in the United States only favors the rich and not the poor. Under the constitution all people should be able to receive “equal justice” in any case that is submitted for hearing in any court of law. According to Galanter, in order to be able to get justice, one has to access the law. This can only be achieved through a competent and qualified lawyer who are unfortunately very expensive; hence, can only be afforded by the rich (Ohio State Bar Association 180).
Even though the government offers legal assistance to those presumed to be poor, this assistance is narrowed down to very specific case. “Legal services offices can handle less than a fifth of the needs of eligible clients and often are able to offer only brief advice, not the full range of assistance that is necessary”. He also argues that even though at times people are able to win cases in court, they end up losing in life as. “Money often matters more than merits.” Galanter further states that even for those people who can afford the lawyers at times do not succeed in their cases. His justification is emphasized in his statement that, “Defendants just over the poverty line who hire their own attorneys don’t necessarily fare better. Most of the lawyers that such people afford do not have the experience and most of the time ends up not representing their clients effectively.” He emphasizes his argument by stating people who live just above the poverty line get counsels who “never tried a case before and never should again (Ohio State Bar Association 200).”
In order to be able to get access to justice, one has to know the procedures to this end. Apparently, most Americans do not know how to get access to justice and as a result, many end up not getting justice at all. Some Americans believe that they are at liberty to be accorded legal aid. Galanter states that, “Not only are Americans ambivalent about ensuring legal assistance, they are ill informed about the assistance currently available. Almost four-fifths incorrectly believe that the poor are now entitled to legal aid in civil cases, and only a third thinks that they would have a very difficult time obtaining assistance”. For those Americans who are entitled to legal aid only limited services are available as the legal offices are overwhelmed by the cases and can only handle about a fifth of the cases (Ohio State Bar Association 170).
Roscoe Pound is another scholar who has offered his views on the design of legal systems. In his argument, he acknowledges that equal justice exists, but apparently only in the law books. However, there is no action to show that it exists. According to Roscoe, the design of the legal system is very effective but the persons that are supposed to implement the policies are not performing as required. Most people are very ignorant of the judicial systems. They do not know how deal with some legal issues and do not ask for guidance from the many legal offices available (Ohio State Bar Association 210).
Analysis
Both scholars place their argument based on very vital issues. Although there seem to be a difference in opinion, they are all aimed at enhancing better structures of the legal systems. The legal structure is meant to ensure fair access to legal aid for those who cannot be able to afford it. Galanter agrees that the legal aid is available but has issues with the way it executes its duties.
Conclusion
Legal structure is very vital in ensuring a competent legal system. Even though at times the design might not seem perfect, determining and rectifying the disparities will ensure the design is convenient to every person. A good legal system design is the one that takes care of the interests of all parties regardless of age, gender, or social status.
Works Cited
Ohio State Bar Association. CLE Institute.Faith, Conscience and the Law: Creative Tension and Conflicting Interests. New York: Ohio State Bar Association. CLE Institute, 2006. Print.
