I have a question for an upcoming midterm of mine and I'm not sure about it the question. I'm not asking you to pretty much do it for me, just to help me out

...Spluh, uhh, and "Bleeeargh!" - this is a question and response session that reads like "How many angels can you fit on the head of a pin?"

You get the complexity. That made my head hurt. Law is like computer programming , except I understand a smidge more on the former.

"At times, laws may be passed that can change the relationships and power among members of the work group, which affect the efficiency of their work and prediction for case outcome difficult. "

Cite examples. Good and bad. Analysis of cases from both defendant and plaintiff sides. Should be easy if you understand the material.

"Well, in this case, "X" happened, in this case, "Y" happened, you want my opinion? I'm just McGill, friendly, neutral lawyer-in-training!"

" Since these issues are coming from the legislating bodies coming up with the changes, there has to be ways in order to address issues while at the same time not disrupting the courtroom work groups. One way to do this would be to design these laws with the work group partially in mind, considering what may happen to them if this law is indeed put in to place."

Could well be the case - I can only speak to cases I've been witness to or subjected to - but judicial discretion has been loosened up quite a bit - and prosecutors are happy to add a "pot" case on their site visit counter so long as they get it.

Unfortunately, those and similar cases tend to be the norm...stuff just big enough that your court-appointed lawyer wants you to fuck off, but small enough that 6 months in jail compel you to capitulate.

Let me ask you this, independent of your mid-term, based on experience - how will you combat or take advantage of these laws to accomplish your goals - career, moral, and intellect-based?

"One way to do this would be to design these laws with the work group partially in mind, considering what may happen to them if this law is indeed put in to place. If that cannot be achieved, the legislators may need to go back and make adjustments to the law to still address the issues but not at the expense of the work group."

Ugh. Think I get the scope of it, but - expect nothing from incompetence in legislation. You're running a GameShark on a PS1 and hoping they don't change the hardware too soon.

Honestly? Disregard the legislators. They're an independent group that make laws that must by necessity (least in 'Murica) be interpreted, defined, and castrated...and due process et al, along with lawsuits have at least laid out the road for "reasonable" if only because it's common.

I almost got into legislators. Almost. hisses

Filthy Hobbitses!!!

Back to just fuck it response:

Nullification is a right. We say no, you say "Goddamnit!" like Cartman. It's never used. If you're a future lawyer, ought to be pissed off about that.

For the rest...I wanna know what potential motives and results you might have...New sentencing laws? From which side - prosecutor? defender?

Streamline legal issues in a barely-codified thing? Michigan Friend of the Court (no affiliation, luckily. should be a fun study.)

Wonder what they're teaching there, and mean no offense or prejudice by my yowling...I don't have an axe to grind here.

/r/Ask_Politics Thread