What are the pros and cons of our two-tiered legal system?
822944
Assuming you're talking about the United States legal system, it is not two-tiered, unless you're considering State/Federal as the two tiers. Within each system, state and federal, there are at least two and sometimes many more tiers.
768203
It is easier, more cost effective, and more powerful to have a single governing body that oversees ALL monopoly actions and behaviors.\n\nHaving more than one would lead to chaos and counter productive potential deadlocks i.e. one approves and one disapproves.\n\nSuch an incident would mean that more lawsuites would follow and further clog an already over loaded legal system.
124586
Is it a pro or con thing? What state are you in. How do you feel about it? What is it you want to know. You need to be more specific.
429582
I must answer this from the perspective of an actual government, not just the hypothetical one, so things may vary somewhat (functions and powers may be differently distributed).  But I believe the basic approach is sound for those operating under a representative system of government other than the U.S. Constitution.\n\nSeveral want to suggest all three of these 'branches' are "equally important". \n\nI may agree with what I THINK they mean, but I also think they misunderstand the question, and perhaps the American system of government.\n\nI would agre that all three functions ARE important (even necessary) to a properly functioning state.\n\nI would also agree that there should be a  healthy 'balance' in which each has its own sphere (not trampling on the others) and even has the ability to act as a check on the others (what Americans call 'checks and balances').\n\nBut that is not the same thing as saying all three have "equal" powers or importance.   \n\nKeeping all that in view, I believe the LEGISLATIVE (or what you call the "parlimentarian") is the most important.  It is  THE branch most directly respresntative of and accountable to the people.  It is also THE source of laws, and what is more central to governing that the system of LAWS?\n\nYes, the other branches have important functions in seeing that laws are effectively and fairly carried out, and may even have some authority to prevent (by exective veto) or rescind (by judicial decision) at least some laws, within limits (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court can declare that a law is void because it violates the Constitution, which takes precedence as THE foundational law).  But neither of these branches can MAKE the laws (at least they are not SUPPOSED to!!)   In particular, the courts --as important as their role is in assuring that our laws are upheld-- COULD not be 'the most important in the POLITICAL systm' when (as in the U.S. design) the judges do not stand for election and so are to some extent OUTSIDE "politics".\n\nA bit of support for this understanding may be found in the 2nd definition of "political" in Webster's--\n  "of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy" --   From this perspective, clearly the legislative branch, and secondarily the executive, have the primacy.\n\nThe much greater detail of Article II of U.S. Constitution --that concerning the legislature -- is one evidence of the importance the founding fathers placed on this branch.  (Their writings back this up.)
839260
Pros:\na bunch more relaxed people\n\nCons: \nanother thing for the gov't to tax\nincreased car accidents\neven more people not caring about anything but themselves\nmore overweight people\nlogistics problems to when and where it is legal\n\nIn other words it is an unintelligent thing to do.
460055
The big advantage is that you get to avoid a trial.  Trials are costly and stressful.\n\nThe disadvantage is that you agree to go with whatever the arbitrator decides.  If you don't like the result, that's tough...a bitter pill to swallow in a divorce.
89016
Pros:\nAllows lower income people to send their kids to private school.\nAllows parents to choose where they send their kids to school\nRewards good schools, punishes bad schools\n\nCons:\nTakes money out of an already cash-strapped public school system\nPublic schools are not allowed to turn down students, so students who aren't accepted by private schools will be stuck in even worse public schools.
33930
As stated before they both have advantages and disadvantages. But in my opinion Common law is better, because then everyone is treated the same.
201613
Our legal system is flawed from square one. An oath is given to uphold THE LAW. \n\nTRUTH and JUSTICE DON'T MATTER - ONLY GAMESMANSHIP, PROCEDURES and THE LAW.\n\nIs it any wonder that our system SUCKS so badly?
408801
"The Adversarial System:  Benefits of this system include the clear division of labour among the participants such as the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and judge.  Also, that as much evidence as possible is looked at in each case and thirdly, the legitimacy of the program is promoted through the appearance of fairness of the system and neutrality of the judge.  Limits of this system are that the adversarial principles can be ignored or negotiated during the daily activities of the court,  time can become a factor since each side is trying to present enough evidence to win their case and delays can occur at each step.  Our system is not a pure adversarial system.  The court’s higher duty of seeing that justice is done is reflected in the fact that the Crown has an obligation to disclose all relevant evidence even after the trial has begun."
464653
Pros, The illegal immigrants will be treated better and be able to drive legally with insurance. Hopefully less use of false documentation and identity fraud. For them they are rewarded for their struggles to come here, which is not a pro for American Citizens.\n\nCons, We will entice people from all around the world to disregard our immigration policies. Multiples of illegals here that may be a risk either criminally or for National Sercurity reasons will be given a free pass to come and go freely. (The first World Trade bomber was given amnesty in the 80s and flew back to Afghanistan to learn how to make bombs.) Our social systems will be strained further as they feel more capable of using the system and a chain reaction on those displaced from the immigration. \n\nAlso, the employers who are enjoy low wages and no fear of litigation or workers comp would lose all benefits of hiring illegal workers.
844830
According to the LAW yes..   Jim\n\nOh it's better anyway a lot fewer problems...
263468
First, I am NOT a lawyer....However, in my career I have dealt with creating and becoming party to contracts on several occasions.  Here are some of the things I have learned:\n\n1.) Contracts CONCEPTUALLY should be a two way benefit for both/all parties involved. A contract HIGHLY 'loaded' for benefit of one party is probably illegal, and would be hard to defend in court.\n\n2.) It is assumed, although not always clearly stated, that the contract is entered into willingly and with good intent for all signors. If there is reason to believe one or the other parties was 'co-erced' or ' manipulated' into signing the document, the contract probably will not stand up in court.\n\n3.) ANY contract is only as valid and strong as the skills and dedication of your lawyer...\n\nHope this helps....
983388
Advantages of a Unicameral System:\n\n    * There is the potential to enact proposed legislation more rapidly, since differences don’t have to be reconciled by two chambers.\n    * There is the potential of greater accountability, since only one body is responsible for legislation.\n    * It is less expensive to maintain one body and fewer legislative members. \n\nIn many cases, one chamber (usually the lower house) has the final say in determining the composition of a bill.\n\n    * In Slovenia, the upper house, National Council, has the power to veto any law within seven days of its adoption by the lower house, National Assembly. However, the National Assembly may override the veto with a simple majority.\n\n    * In Russia, the Federation Council (upper house) may reject a law passed by the Duma (lower house), but the Duma may override the Federation Council with a two-thirds majority.
893800
All interesting topics. Two sides to all the issues so you can choose any side you want. Juvenile justice I like. Some people think that we need to charge 14 year olds as adults and throw away the key. But there's a lot of info on the other side too. 14 year olds aren't adults when they're "good' so why are they when they're bad. It can be argued that we need a better system. There is science that teenage brains aren't fully developed. And it's a money issue-if you throw a 14 yr old in prison for life instead of rehabilitation, that gets expensive. Not to mention our prisons are full. And then the war against drugs. Another great topic. Do some searches using some of those terms-wikipedia.com is a good place to start looking for ideas....
1037360
Wow...many pros and cons to this.\nPros: up and coming business, definitely a future for this.\nCons:  liability issues, permit fees, government involvement (checking your business out)\nPretty tricky unless you know the right people who will have your back!
230817
I can give you two reasons in particular: judicial resources are maxed out primarily because of 1) frivolous lawsuits being brought by dishonest people seeking to get rich based on loopholes in the system, and 2) the over-prosecution of minor drug offenses (most of which should be handled as mental health issues and not as crimes).  If we could solve those two major problems, justice would indeed be swift and society would be significantly better off.