Guilty Until Proven Innocent

           A commentary on Dominic's post entitled "The Jury's Out" from the blog "TX: Affairs of the State." To start off, I believe this was a great subject to write about. I've always wondered what the consequences when you wrongfully accuse a person. Also, what does the court system do when they were wrong when locking up an innocent person.
            
           It disgust me when a prosecutor will go this far to unfairly win a case. For someone with this authority to practice unethical procedures to gain an unfair advantage is clearly pathetic. I can't believe Ken Anderson was given the right to pass judgement on others after an act like this. Prosecutor misconduct is a serious problem and its barely being noticed. I'm glad that Texas has adopted a convection review committee for those who may be wrongfully imprisoned. Preventatives such as this will help prevent wrongful death penalties and wrongful imprisonment. The disclosure laws should help with withholding evidence that should be presented to pursue an ethical outcome. The goal of the courts should be that of proving of innocence as much as proving of guilt.

         This article was informative and meaningful. I believe that Texas should take this further though. The prosecutor should be held personally responsible for a wrongful imprisonment since they cannot be sued in a civil case. Accountability should level the playing field for defendants. I've read of states who award the falsely convicted with money but lets face it, there's no returning those lost years. The proper preventatives must be implemented to stop this unfair justice.

A Boy Named Sued

                     
             I was wondering what to complain about this week and came across a little known thing called "arbitration." This ambiguous phrase is a very important factor when signing any type of contract. In this argument, I'm speaking of forced arbitration. Arbitration, in general, waives the rights of consumers or employees to settle a dispute in a civil court. On top of that, people are being stripped of their rights to sue as a class. What does this have to do with Texas? Any state that claims to be "business" friendly, will be using this practice one way or another.

             First off, one of my main concerns about arbitration is the ignorance that surrounds it. Why is that? The less you know the better for the business. You're thinking, "I've never seen any arbitration", and that's my point exactly. 64% of consumers don't have any recollection of seeing any arbitration. Even if they saw some sort of paper work, they were ill informed. If you have a credit card, bank account, cell phone, or even cable and Internet, you were more than likely subjected to an arbitration clause. Surveys show, 75% of most companies have some sort of arbitration. Now when I say ignorance, I mean that for the business as well. Most associates or representatives that work for these companies don't have the slightest idea of what an arbitration is. In some cases, employees aren't properly trained or informed. If you were to see the paper work, you could swear it was a separate contract itself. Pay close attention next time your signing a contract. Forced arbitration gives the consumer an ultimatum, give up your right or don't receive services.

             So what does this mean for consumers? The consumer is having his rights to sue a company  for any disputes in a traditional court and are unable to form a class action lawsuit. In a nutshell, the consumer must take action in a mediation that is payed for by the company whom you are suing. The consumer must face an arbitrator who is hired by the company. His job is to act as a judge in the case. The catch is, the arbitrator is paid by the company you are suing as well. So who do you think the arbitrator is going to side with? More than 90% of arbitrators side with the company. This leaves barely any room for accountability in the business. Also, arbitration can be backwards justice. In some cases, the company is allowed to sue you but not vise versa. 79% of consumers expect to sue a company is there's any disputes. That's going to be a rude awakening, especially for the every day Texan.

            In conclusion, the consumer is denied his rights to fix a situation, which in turns makes it difficult to regulate proper ethics. More education for employees and full disclaimer would level out the playing field. The company should offer an opt out at all times. I understand that arbitration was set up to be efficient and low costing, but it really just puts the consumer at the company's mercy with policies like these.