The Pros And Cons Of Tort Reform

I am going to write this paper on tort reform, what it is and its overarching role in the documentary. Tort Reform is defined as “proposed changes in the civil justice system that aim to reduce the ability of victims to bring litigation or to reduce damages they can receive”. Another theme that I believe ties in really well with the idea of tort reform is the idea of how big of an influence money has in politics. Many people would agree that there are a lot of companies that would want tort reform so they don’t have to worry about losing millions of dollars.
I don’t believe that it is a good thing for the United States and the world in general and it isn’t a good way to accomplish the idea of big corporations wanting to restrict consumers from using the civil justice system. I personally believe and am siding with the conflict theorist on this film. I don’t feel that it’s right to try and reduce the ability of the normal American citizen to sue a company when the company is in the wrong doing. I feel that a conflict theorist would not agree with this idea and that the American citizen has a right to sue for a wrong doing if they chose so. I feel as though they believe that this would be infringing on the rights of the Americans and their ability to do what they want and how this is essentially restricting their constitutional rights. Now

I wrote about tort reform and how I feel it is a bad idea and I don’t agree with it. I also tied into that theme the theme of money in politics and without all the money in politics I feel as there would be a lot less people that would want tort reform because a lot less people would have a lot less money to lose. As for have a theory, I felt I viewed this whole film as a conflict theorist. I felt that because I thought most of the things happening in the film were wrong and restricting the rights of people and their constitutional