A blog about News.
|
Sound Off for Oct. 19, 2008 Sound Off for Oct. 12, 2008 Sound Off for Oct. 5, 2008 Sound Off for Sept. 28, 2008 Sound Off for Sept. 21, 2008 Sound Off for Sept. 14, 2008 Sound off for Sept. 7, 2008 Sound off for Aug. 31, 2008 Sound off for Aug. 24, 2008 Sound off for Aug. 17, 2008 June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 May 06 April 06 March 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Secrecy in court does not help
Reader: I was struck by the phrase in the recent column by Dianne Hardisty that read: "The public and open nature of our court system was designed by our Founding Fathers to prevent abuses." I have had a number of opportunities to observe cases in family court where lawyers and the judge go into "chambers" to talk about a case. Out they come with some plan of action or decision.
You have no idea what happened, what your lawyer said to represent you or how vigorously he represented you, no idea what the other lawyer said. No notes are taken, no record of what occurred. Where is the openness when things go on behind closed doors? People tell lawyers they want everything in open court, not done behind closed doors, but it does no good. -- Carol Lair Editorial Page Editor Dianne Hardisty responds:You are certainly correct that secrecy does not benefit folks in court. What you describe is exactly why women in the Legislature balked at making it easier to seal divorce records. They feared women could be hurt in such situations. How would the public monitor a judge, for example, who ruled consistently in favor of a certain lawyer or to benefit friends? We are equally concerned with sealing "settlements" in civil cases, particularly product liability cases. Take a defective car, for example. Other owners of that same model have no idea that the company settled, paid damages and made other concessions for one owner and likely should to hundreds of thousands others who own the same defective vehicle. 1 comments from 1 users
1
posted by
Goat
on Aug 3, 2006 at 01:57 PM
I completely agree, although I resent the implication that women would be the group hurt most/only group hurt by sealing the records. Women may be hurt by it, and men could be as well, as well as other demographics. This isn't wabout women vs men, it's about us (the people) vs them (the govt).
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
