> The problem with non-law-affiliates doing legal research,
> either in books (BORING) or online (WOW!), is that they are
> blocked by the language and structure of the law.
Definitely; but lack of general knowledge and poor literacy skills
are even bigger barriers in my experience -- not just the minimal
ability to relate written words to their spoken equivalents, but the
ability to assimilate texts and put them into some kind of meaningful
context. What stops many of the pro se patrons I serve (more than
"the language and structure of the law"), is the lack of the general
understanding any high school graduate should have about how the
government works, how laws get passed, at least a fuzzy notion of
how appellate cases can be binding on lower courts, etc. People
OTOH with no specialized legal knowledge, who have a good command of
language and a high level of what has been called "cultural literacy"
tend to get by pretty well in my experience.
(Translated: smarter people are better researchers than dumb ones?
Maybe it boils down to that, but seeing these problems every day
for the last decade has made me a strong advocate for literacy
programs.)
> My gut reaction to reading Chris Noe's posting was YAY!
> Power to the People! But then I thought about how such a
> database would work, and I decided that, for most of the general
> public, it would not be such a benefit.
Considering Project Hermes as an example, it has been enormously
satisfying for me to pull down a perfectly typeset version of a
brand new Supreme Court decision for a member of the general public
who had read about it in the newspaper. Granted, we have them in
print in a week, but news coverage of the Court is such that people
are very often aware of new decisions immediately. Even if they need
a little mediation in their use of a database or FTP site, it can be a
great benefit.
Lawyers often need very new statutes that are too long and hence much
too expensive to download or print offline. A nice public-domain FTP
site containing slip laws typeset as they will appear in paper would
be very handy in these cases. Right now they either wait for USCCAN
(et al.), or request it by smail from their senator or representa-
tive.
Key word searching of archives is an obvious plus, but mere docket-
number access to the newest material is worth the price of admission
IMO.
> . . . 7.5 years of experience
> convinces me that what the public needs is either more accessible
> systems of justice or more NOLO press books.
I vote for both -- can I do that?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST