I hope you're not arguing that there's no reason to try to figure out what went wrong, and see if it can be fixed.
I don't have any preconceived notions as to what that would be, or how to go about doing it, but I think it's a good time to talk about it.
Congress went to a lot of trouble to pass the law that gave her family the right to a trial de novo, but she did not get one. Why not?
David Boies said that he thought the courts were exalting form over substance. I thought he raised a very good point.
No, but I am saying that calls to torch the system are premature, and that's essentially where much of this hullaballoo is heading. I don't doubt for a moment that the problem, such as it is, is eminently fixable, but the next question is, are the proposed cures worse than the disease? What is the cost of fixing the problem, and who will bear it?
The law is a very utilitarian affair, in the end. It produces reasonable amounts of good for the most possible people. It does not produce perfect good for all people, and it's a waste of time to try. "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien," as our friend Voltaire reminds us.
David Boies said that he thought the courts were exalting form over substance. I thought he raised a very good point.
The law is not itself "justice". The law is how we find justice. It is, really, the best, most practical means of finding justice. If I may, it seems to me that you could sum up Boies by saying that laws, procedures, practices, rules, standards, et cetera, are all well and good, so long as they do not interfere with the desired result. No. The alternative to law is not justice, the alternative to law is anarchy, and anarchy only produces justice accidentally.