It seems that fear of law suits are stopping institutions from appologizing when they do something stupid; like a minor PC blunder ... Ok major stuff, I understand pulling out the lawyers otherwise they'd go broke ... but when it's just a minor incorrect PC blunders, they are so defensive to deny anywrong doing.  Wouldn't life be better if people meet each other half way???
201265
Yes, it's kind of sad these days with all the lawsuits flying around.  But I think those people think of it as "easy money" and I doubt our justice system will ever change much.  We have 10000 warning labels these days just because of random lawsuits and such, such as the labels on irons that say, "Don't iron anything if you're wearing it." :)
534049
Generalization is a human trait, not one specifically reserved for lawyers and judges.  When you are in a profession dealing with a mass of humanity, one of the things you discover is that there are far more similarities than differences.  It is personal and individual to you because you are only one individual and are concerned with only one individual- naturally.  But consider that the lawyers and judges see many people, not just one, and are in a situation to see more of the similarities than differences on the whole.  Regular people do this all the time, which is one way we are able to predict behavior in others, and even express empathy.  We know how another person  feels, and can reasonably expect to predict what is being thought, base on experience we have had ourselves or observed in others.  Talk to a teenager, and see what I mean.  The teenager often feels rather unique in their situation, and the way they feel/think.  If you are of any age, you will understand they are pretty normal and pretty much like most other teenagers.  They don't see it that way, but that doesn't change the fact that they are- and you are in a better position to see it than they are.  By virtue of your age and experience, you are better able to judge their "uniqueness" than they are.  The judges and lawyers do it much the same way.  While your case may have some unique points, I would imagine there are plenty of cases which have proceeded yours that were remarkably similar.  They may not be able to name names- privacy being a major issue there- but the numbers are there just the same.
670233
I can rant about this all night if you want.\n\nThe simple, central fallacy is that writing laws will solve problems.  Commit a wrongdoing = go to jail.  In jail for a felony?  Get rehabilitation.  Good time and behavior = release.\n\nIt's a system designed by politics to punish threats to society.  We don't know what we're doing on the subject of rehabilitation, we're guessing.  ANOTHER set of laws deal with probation and sentencing length and release dates.\n\nSo the system as a whole is a sloppy political fingerpainting.  Ugh.  Nobody thinks they have honestly been rehabilitated and represent no threat whatsoever upon release.  kubuki theatre.
603583
Not Myspaces fault that she was dumb enough to give him her phone number.\n\nHonestly people these days are so obsessed on suing people that they forget that they themselves are the ones at fault.
248941
I don't agree with guroo_ray.  Sounds like he thinks that only people with money should be able to seek compensation for harms done to them.  Citizens have the right to file petitions and are able to without a lawyer. Look up "pro se litigancy".  There are books on how to represent yourself in court.  I've done it.
647362
Getting in trouble with the law can cause a person to be angry at the person he thought was responsible. He need to grow up and accept responsibility for his own actions. If he really loved you like he said he did then he could get over this and prove everyone wrong, I know it's hurtful but try to delete him from your memory.
440798
They are set free, and if they're lucky, they may get an apology from a court.\nThis has happened before, so its not hypothetical. It's fact. The law.
73259
It depends on the ages of the kids.  Maybe only one was under 16.  Also, lawyers make deals all the time; they may have agreed to reduce the charges in return for a confession (makes their jobs a lot easier).
321907
As someone that works in the law enforcement field I apologize for that judge's mistreatment of you. So many people in my field become desensitized to the pain that crime causes the victims, and it's a shame. I've seen it myself first hand and it's sick. Don't let that stupid judge's reaction hinder your healing. Be strong... in the end it's your strength and courage that will help you heal. In the end no punishment given to a dirt bag will heal you. Get help, seek God, and stay strong. Email me if you need a friendly ear. nworkman82@hotmail.com
228308
Barristral Immunity is becoming a issue: In commonwealth countries there is a tendency to say no immunity in civil cases in negligent preparation. The real issue is that : whether it would run the risk of double jeopardy. Its very hard to see the differences between a lawyer and other professional persons. Again this is a negligence issue and there is a general shift away from such immunity. Personally I'm all for it, not because its fair but because I'm a law student and it is in my best interest to keep it.
424052
You don't say who made this request to the Coucil and in what circumstances.  It sounds as though the Council is being gently prodded to think things through and perhaps withdraw an action to recover what is owed on the grounds that the person is somewhat deranged or mentally handicapped.  Those hearing the case can't say such a thing outright, but they can drop loud hints to the effect that if a person isn't in a fit mental state to deal with his financial affairs, it is perhaps not a good thing to bring him to court, especially if he is arguing with deep conviction that he doesn't understand why he is being prosecuted and doesn't feel he owes anything.  Maybe now that we are not allowed to use Latin in court, "moral culpability" is the new "mens rea".
580827
The law on this subject can vary quite a bit from state to state, as some (like New York) offer very strong protection for a person's identity -- particularly if that identity has some commercial or celebrity value.  I think you have several strong claims, including misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment (the money they make selling copies of the interview), invasion of privacy, misappropriation of your name or face value (if you are famous or infamous), and on and on.  Many of the claims you would be making sound in equity rather than in law (a distinction that might bore you to death to see explained), but it basically means that those guys would come in "with dirty hands" in lawyer-speak, having committed a deception at the outset that basically invited trouble.  Judges hate that stuff and would probably tend to side with you, if it came to that.  Their lawyers will know that.  You should seriously consider interrupting your lawyer's holiday or talking to someone in his office or referral list.  (Most attorneys would usually have someone "on call" for their clients if they were going to be out of contact.)  You have a strong case but should probably act right away to preserve your rights.  Remember that vigilant defense of your rights this time can help discourage the bad guys from messing with you next time.  Good luck.
98924
Either of your fears can come true, but I believe it is not the question, but the manner you ask it which makes it disagreeable.  I would suggest you to apply this question  to your question--Would it hurt anybody?  If your answer is yes, rephrase the question, and apply my question again.  If you are unsuccessful in rephrasing it appropriately, send the question to me at aseem.kumar@yahoo.co.in, and I will try getting/giving you an answer.\n\nYou might also try putting a disclaimer with an advance apology with your question.\n\nI would encourage you not to keep the question to yourself, but discuss it as appropriately as you can.
644437
Bah I think the kids are to bplame... and tehre parents for letting them put up personal information.\n\nThen again it's a modern trend for suing some one else for something thats your fult...\n\nYou know some one sued a home owner becose he accidently stabed himself on a knife that was laying out the home he BROKE INTO..... WTF....
292023
I understand your resentment, I mean the operation  unnecessarily entices people, who would otherwise not commit the crime.  HOWEVER, those guys showed up there are not being prosecuted based on thoughts but a definite commission of a crime. Here an attempted sexual abuse of a minor for sure (by most common definition, he or she must make substantial steps to effect a crime, sexual abuse of minor). \n\nInterestingly, some jurisdictions do offer a common law defense of entrapment. That is --- a procedural defense by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because they were induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts.\n\nHowever, for the defense to prevail he must show he was forced into committing a crime otherwise he would not. And that does not appear to be the case in the dateline stories.  Some guys even stripped before walking into the meeting house !0!
300712
Larrise T, you are not helpful. \n\nHun, one thing I have learnt it that people do not like being accused, even if they are doing something wrong. They are reacting to your initial accusation of the death threat.\n\nI would suggest leaving them alone for a week and then coming back to apologise again. If they have time to cool down they will be more willing to listen to your apology.\n\nGood luck.
234241
I am not sure your exact situation but I know its not your job to do anything other then what the judge says (interperating fact and then applying fact to legal principles) even if it turns to a crappy result... Dont feel bad about it its not your fault or your job to worry about why someone has the better side... You can only see what you see (and its this design that makes the system work)