1.    How would you define the adversarial system?  What are some of the pros/cons of the system?  What changes would you make to the system?

2.    The adversarial system is basically a legal system that is used in common law countries where two parties represent their parties case before a judge or jury and the truth is determined. The cons are who to say that the right decision is made by the group or person who is making the decision? In my opinion, you are likely to get a one sided answer to the problem and the problem will still not be solved. My solution to fix this system would be to change the way cases are viewed and let others like the state make the decisions. I guess the main question that lies with this is, is it fair?

3.    At its heart, the adversarial system is simply two people representing themselves in court against each other. In a way this can be good, as these people do not have to worry about the legal fees of a lawyer, however it can also be a negative thing, as without representation certain important details could be forgotten and the plaintiff and defendant get into a battle of “he said-she said”. Changes to the system would be difficult, as most lawyers do not wish to take a pro bono case and those who are appointed to a client are done so in criminal cases, rather than civil cases. Perhaps an incentive program of some kind for lawyers so that they could help with these cases?

4.    We all hear people talk about wanting things to be different – laws to be different.  

Identify a criminal law that you would repeal or change.  What would you change, or why would you delete it? 

      Identify a criminal law that you would like to add.  Why would you like to see this new criminal      

      law?

5.    Forcing a woman to undergo a surgery on reproductive organs would require a change in the constitution. However, Brandy, I am on the same page as you when it comes to your feelings towards these types of women. It makes me angry, sad and frustrated that some women can and choose to continue to have children and neglect or not care for them properly. I do not believe it is right to force a woman to undergo a surgery that is not medically necessary; sometimes it’s medically necessary, but not in this sense. We can only hope that women can and will come to a point where they realize they should not be having any more children and make the decision to undergo the surgery themselves. Maybe instead of making this situation into a law, the government could start some type of funding for women who do not have insurance to cover this surgery. What do you both think?

6.       Something should be done about those who have many children that have been taken away and placed with the state, I am not sure that a forced, permanent surgery is the answer. Being the product of one such woman, as well as an aspiring psychologist, I have a bit of insight to add to this proposed law that you would like to see instated. Perhaps, instead of a permanent surgery, the women are given an IUD and mandated to counseling?