I think this the most important thing for getting a fair trial is that both parties choose the arbitrator/judge. Anyone disagree?
I have talked to some statists about the U.S. courts. They like to claim the trials are fair because the judges are only expected to enforce laws, their pay is set and they are appointed not elected. So what? Their employer makes a rule that I have to pay them, and then the judge is expected to enforce that rule, the rule I have an issue with. That doesn’t make it fair. Their pay is set, so long as we are forced to pay them. If no one had to pay taxes, then their pay would not be set. It would drop to zero. Lastly how does it matter how the judge is appointed, if the opposing party gets to appoint the judge!!!
Anyone else run across any other asinine claims in regards to courts being fair?
Well, its conceivable that both parties chose the same judge and the trial is not fair. If the judge ignores evidence, treats one party preferentially in testimony, etc., most people would say the trial wasn’t fair at all. Agreeing on the same arbitrator is really just a method to move towards a fair trial, not so much the defining characteristic of fairness.
I think people in general are much less apologetic about the courts than the ones you’ve spoken to. People feel that judges are biased in some way and thats why they are so enamoured with juries. Plus, I don’t know a single person who’s gone to court for traffic violations or other non-jury based arbitrations and felt that it was a truly fair system.