<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>评论：我看美国 -5- 关于律师的三个定律</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86</link>
	<description>用理工科思维理解世界</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:08:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>来自：路过</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-2409</link>
		<dc:creator>路过</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:10:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-2409</guid>
		<description>严重跑题

开头论点是强大来源于法治

后来部分完全没能证明法治和强大有什么关系。。。。。。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>严重跑题</p>
<p>开头论点是强大来源于法治</p>
<p>后来部分完全没能证明法治和强大有什么关系。。。。。。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>来自：Enid</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-2255</link>
		<dc:creator>Enid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:33:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-2255</guid>
		<description>04年纽约时报的那个例子似乎是蔡康永所写LA流浪记的故事。
据蔡所说，舞女是苗女，嫁给那个美国人只是为了获取绿卡。
而那个美国人杀妻后的确很痛苦，以至于有点神经病了。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>04年纽约时报的那个例子似乎是蔡康永所写LA流浪记的故事。<br />
据蔡所说，舞女是苗女，嫁给那个美国人只是为了获取绿卡。<br />
而那个美国人杀妻后的确很痛苦，以至于有点神经病了。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>来自：Debs</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-1901</link>
		<dc:creator>Debs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 18:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-1901</guid>
		<description>可好像把陪审团的作用给漏了，美国法庭上大多时候是三方博弈，而法官只是个维护比赛秩序的裁判，而且是那种篮球，排球的裁判差不多，连博弈过程都没法参加，更别说比赛输赢了。不像大陆法系的自由心证，那就像体操，冰山芭蕾的比赛裁判，鬼知道如何心证法的，如果各个级别心都不正，就啥也证不了了。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>可好像把陪审团的作用给漏了，美国法庭上大多时候是三方博弈，而法官只是个维护比赛秩序的裁判，而且是那种篮球，排球的裁判差不多，连博弈过程都没法参加，更别说比赛输赢了。不像大陆法系的自由心证，那就像体操，冰山芭蕾的比赛裁判，鬼知道如何心证法的，如果各个级别心都不正，就啥也证不了了。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>来自：dahuang</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-1216</link>
		<dc:creator>dahuang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 19:48:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-1216</guid>
		<description>律师的职业就是骗人，干的最好的律师能被选为美国总统。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>律师的职业就是骗人，干的最好的律师能被选为美国总统。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>来自：通宵上传</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-1017</link>
		<dc:creator>通宵上传</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-1017</guid>
		<description>Type your comment here&lt;blockquote cite=&quot;#comment-body-71&quot;&gt;
&lt;strong&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-71&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;早&lt;/a&gt; :&lt;/strong&gt;
                  
         
         
         怎么没有四？
         &lt;a&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
       &lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Type your comment here<br />
<blockquote cite="#comment-body-71">
<strong><a href="#comment-71" rel="nofollow">早</a> :</strong></p>
<p>         怎么没有四？<br />
         <a></a>
       </p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>来自：早</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-71</link>
		<dc:creator>早</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:58:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-71</guid>
		<description>怎么没有四？</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>怎么没有四？</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>来自：同人于野</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>同人于野</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:24:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-35</guid>
		<description>楼上两位说的都很有理。独立博客的最大好处就是更容易得到高质量的评论。

中国的法治状况没法跟美国比。但到底应该怎么看美国的这个律师制度呢？医保费用越来越高，一个重要原因就是医疗诉讼的赔偿金太大。怎样才是客观的认识？也许这些只不过是一个法治社会的必要成本，它给社会运行带来的好处远远大于坏处？也许这是一个必须改革不可的阻碍社会前进的毒瘤？</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>楼上两位说的都很有理。独立博客的最大好处就是更容易得到高质量的评论。</p>
<p>中国的法治状况没法跟美国比。但到底应该怎么看美国的这个律师制度呢？医保费用越来越高，一个重要原因就是医疗诉讼的赔偿金太大。怎样才是客观的认识？也许这些只不过是一个法治社会的必要成本，它给社会运行带来的好处远远大于坏处？也许这是一个必须改革不可的阻碍社会前进的毒瘤？</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>来自：Jane</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>Jane</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:42:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-22</guid>
		<description>The US is a common law country. This jurisdiction determines that its legal system is an open one, judges would differentiate different facts of the cases and make decisions. China is a civil law country.  It is a rather closed system in that judges are to interpret the codes. The civil law system itself provides less flexibility and more certainty, while the common law system is on the opposite.

Also, China is still at &quot;rule by law&quot; stage, where law is an instrument and at the service of the state, where as the US is a rule of law country, where the laws are at the services of everyone, including the state. Typically, judges in a rule of law society take a very big role.

Another reason why there are so many lawsuits in the US is contingent fees. In the US, lawyers can work on this basis, ie they do not get paid unless they win the case, and if they are successful, they may get up to 1/3 of the award. I&#039;m not sure whether this exists in China.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US is a common law country. This jurisdiction determines that its legal system is an open one, judges would differentiate different facts of the cases and make decisions. China is a civil law country.  It is a rather closed system in that judges are to interpret the codes. The civil law system itself provides less flexibility and more certainty, while the common law system is on the opposite.</p>
<p>Also, China is still at &#8220;rule by law&#8221; stage, where law is an instrument and at the service of the state, where as the US is a rule of law country, where the laws are at the services of everyone, including the state. Typically, judges in a rule of law society take a very big role.</p>
<p>Another reason why there are so many lawsuits in the US is contingent fees. In the US, lawyers can work on this basis, ie they do not get paid unless they win the case, and if they are successful, they may get up to 1/3 of the award. I&#8217;m not sure whether this exists in China.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>来自：Gekko</title>
		<link>http://www.geekonomics10000.com/86/comment-page-1#comment-12</link>
		<dc:creator>Gekko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:54:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekonomics10000.com/?p=86#comment-12</guid>
		<description>美国的诉讼模式是“当事人主义”“对抗式”，我国则是“超职权主义”“纠问式”，当然现在叫“职权主义”和“控辩式”了。
“法治”还不足以概括美国强大的原因，“宪政”则可以。中国的问题是没有分权，D掌管一切，老百姓在法庭上败诉，不服就一定要上访，上级被上访弄烦了就干预司法，弄一些权宜之计，还美其名曰“服务大局”。
同人兄在国外，可能不太了解中国的事，姓胡的提出一个“社会主义法治理念”“三个至上”，“法治”更成空谈了。</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>美国的诉讼模式是“当事人主义”“对抗式”，我国则是“超职权主义”“纠问式”，当然现在叫“职权主义”和“控辩式”了。<br />
“法治”还不足以概括美国强大的原因，“宪政”则可以。中国的问题是没有分权，D掌管一切，老百姓在法庭上败诉，不服就一定要上访，上级被上访弄烦了就干预司法，弄一些权宜之计，还美其名曰“服务大局”。<br />
同人兄在国外，可能不太了解中国的事，姓胡的提出一个“社会主义法治理念”“三个至上”，“法治”更成空谈了。</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
