ryoder 1,590 #26 September 16, 2015 Ever heard of "Powell vs Alabama"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._Alabama"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #27 September 16, 2015 Silly strawman. One is treating a persons health who might be a rapist, the other is actively ignoring and defending a rapist and getting paid for it. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #28 September 16, 2015 ryoderEver heard of "Powell vs Alabama"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._Alabama What is your point? I have already addressed that there are people out there willing to perform this task. No one is saying all defense lawyers should be removed from the process. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,593 #29 September 16, 2015 That's why you're on the first responder/enforcement side of the equation. People are suited for different things; I'd be a terrible police officer, but I'm a fantastic after-the fact analyst and before-the-fact risk analyst. And before you say that after the fact analysis is bullshit, unless your actions are always perfect, later analysis is good. After all, you go o rr your jumps so the next one can be better, right? There's room for just about all of us. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #30 September 16, 2015 wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we all could be so self righteous that we could just decide on our own the guilt and innocence of everyone around us? we could just kill all the bad people - without process, without consideration, without any compunction at all . . . Sometimes people wish to express outrage over evil acts, and then completely lose rationality just for the desire to vent emotion. I'd prefer judges, police, public servants, lawyers, engineers, doctors, etc etc etc, to maintain rationality despite their visceral reactions. Not be a slave to them. Judge Dredd - It's not up to you or any individual to decide where to draw the line to deny due process to any individual. Unless you are willing to carry out your vengeance (NOT justice), or vent your simplistic outrage, personally, and voluntarily face the consequences, as a result, within that same due process system you so casually dismiss - without weak rationalization or excuses. Edit: if one wants to Slam Hillary on the topic, it won't be on the basis of her doing her job and then hoping the self righteous brigade jumps on board - they already have a Machiavellian attitude to getting her out of hte way. A real argument is her lack of action to protect all those girls from her predator husband. She could have testified on their behalf instead of standing behind her man for merely political considerations. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #31 September 16, 2015 http://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2012/09/are-lawyers-immoral.html Quote1. The Standard Conception of the Lawyer’s Role By and large, lawyers are greedy, self-serving, callous, money-grabbing and unsympathetic. Criminal defence lawyers often make careers out of defending the indefensible, doing their utmost for clients they know to be guilty, delaying justice for the victims of violent crime, and tying the police and courts up in ribbons of procedural regulations. And corporate lawyers are often even worse, prostituting themselves to the highest bidder, spending hours finding ways for companies to avoid paying taxes or searching for loopholes in environmental or safety regulations that the companies can exploit. To be sure, there are the odd few commendable Atticus Finch-type figures in the legal profession, but they are few and far between. Or so, at least, goes a common and cynical view of the legal profession. What could provoke such ire for lawyers? The answer seems to stem from three core principles which lawyers adhere to in carrying out their duties. The principles are: The Principle of Partisanship: A lawyer’s sole allegiance is to his/her client. This means that — within the limits of law but nothing else — a lawyer should do everything within his or her power to protect the interests of their client. The Principle of Neutrality: A lawyer must remain neutral with respect to the moral merits of their client or of their client’s objectives. They must not allow their own moral view to distort or detract from the diligence or zealousness they put into defending their client’s case. The Principle of Non-Accountability: A lawyer is not morally accountable for what they do when fulfilling their professional duties. Thus, if by the consequences of their actions, a guilty criminal is released and commits more crimes, the lawyer is not in any sense held to account for what has happened. In other words, a lawyer has a role-based excuse for their actions. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 September 16, 2015 AnvilbrotherSilly strawman. One is treating a persons health who might be a rapist, the other is actively ignoring and defending a rapist and getting paid for it. How did you feel about that fire department in Tennessee No Pay No Spray and just stood around and watched some peoples home burn down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #33 September 16, 2015 It is a disgrace and I would never do it. But the Model of private fire coverage only works if you stick to that principle of not responding if you did not pay. If not you get the situation of half the county not paying for insurance but always getting coverage so I see why the company would do it, but do not agree. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 381 #34 September 16, 2015 So you are saying that it is inappropriate for a defense lawyer to question the veracity of an alleged rape victim's story? Perhaps you now feel we should give Al Sharpton a break and admit that it was immoral for anyone to question Tawana Brawley's accusations? Or is this situation somehow different because it involves Hillary Clinton? A big problem with the case in the link was that the police lost a key piece of evidence, a piece of cloth with a blood stain the police cut from the victim's underwear. Should a defense lawyer just let that go unmentioned? Who is more at fault when a guilty party escapes punishment in such a case, the defense attorney or the police/prosecutors who mishandled and lost critical pieces of evidence? It is easy, but intellectually lazy, to question the morals of anyone who serves as a defense lawyer. I prefer to think of it this way: that lawyer is protecting my rights, because if the State is free to prosecute anybody and does not have to actually present evidence or abide by the Constitution wrt search warrants and other limitations on government powers, then we are all at risk. By making sure the State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, while respecting all constitutional rights, that lawyer is ensuring that the State cannot easily jail political opponents or people the prosecutors or police just dislike or find inconvenient. It certainly sucks, especially for the victim, when the State is unable to meet the standard for a conviction when the defendant is actually guilty. It would suck more if the State had the power to jail anyone they chose and only had to put on a show trial. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #35 September 16, 2015 GeorgiaDonSo you are saying that it is inappropriate for a defense lawyer to question the veracity of an alleged rape victim's story? Perhaps you now feel we should give Al Sharpton a break and admit that it was immoral for anyone to question Tawana Brawley's accusations? Or is this situation somehow different because it involves Hillary Clinton? A big problem with the case in the link was that the police lost a key piece of evidence, a piece of cloth with a blood stain the police cut from the victim's underwear. Should a defense lawyer just let that go unmentioned? Who is more at fault when a guilty party escapes punishment in such a case, the defense attorney or the police/prosecutors who mishandled and lost critical pieces of evidence? It is easy, but intellectually lazy, to question the morals of anyone who serves as a defense lawyer. I prefer to think of it this way: that lawyer is protecting my rights, because if the State is free to prosecute anybody and does not have to actually present evidence or abide by the Constitution wrt search warrants and other limitations on government powers, then we are all at risk. By making sure the State has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, while respecting all constitutional rights, that lawyer is ensuring that the State cannot easily jail political opponents or people the prosecutors or police just dislike or find inconvenient. It certainly sucks, especially for the victim, when the State is unable to meet the standard for a conviction when the defendant is actually guilty. It would suck more if the State had the power to jail anyone they chose and only had to put on a show trial. Don No one said all lawyers, no one said even all defense lawyers. I am specifically talking about the morals of defense lawyers who defend people who they know by admission or evidence that they are in fact guilty, or plan to lie in court. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/where-legal-ethics-and-common-morals-clash/1093605 Good example of the extreme ranges of this in action. Many times we know cases are decided not by the letter of the law but by which lawyer could bullshit the jury the best. And it goes the other way for a prosecutor who knows the person is innocent but still drives on to put them in jail. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #36 September 16, 2015 AnvilbrotherI am specifically talking about the morals of defense lawyers who defend people who they know by admission or evidence that they are in fact guilty, or plan to lie in court. That is Suborning Perjury. See the section titled "Special Rules for Attorneys": http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/suborning-perjury.htm Most of the time, merely knowing that someone else is planning on committing perjury, without trying to make it happen, will not amount to suborning perjury. But the rule changes when an attorney knows that his client or any witness the lawyer intends to call plans to lie under oath. Attorneys have a special duty as officers of the court. Not only are they barred from trying to influence a witness to lie under oath, they also must not call a witness whom they know or believe will lie under oath. And, once an attorney learns that a client or any witness intends to lie under oath, the attorney must inform the witness of the consequences of committing perjury and advise the witness not to do so."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #37 September 16, 2015 We we all know that $$$$$$$$$$$ will buy you a look the other way, a blind eye and a deaf ear. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #38 September 16, 2015 GeorgiaDonSo is it now the conservative argument that accused rapists should not be allowed a lawyer to defend them? Or is it that their defense should not actually try to present a competent defense? I thought the Constitution assured everyone of the right to legal representation in court. I guess that's just another part of the Constitution that is dispensable (to some people) if doing so allows for some political advantage. Don So competent now equates to dishonest and lying. Or is that only reserved for the people you support?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #39 September 16, 2015 AnvilbrotherI will reply to you and bill both with the same thing. Any lawyer who knowingly defends someone they know is guilty is a seriously messed up person. We all know there are people that will do this, so the legal system is in no jeopardy of collapse due to a sudden rise in lawyers with morals, so that is never going to happen. Don't act like this is the first time you have ever read or heard anyone question the morals of a defense lawyer there are books written about this. I don't know. If you can defend a person that you know is guilty, by using moral and just reasoning, without lying or cheating, I think it is perfectly acceptable. Loop holes exist in the law. Just don't lie, or cheat.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 381 #40 September 16, 2015 Quote I am specifically talking about the morals of defense lawyers who defend people who they know by admission or evidence that they are in fact guilty...Our Constitution does not say that guilty people are not entitled to a legal defense. Sometimes it is abundantly clear that the defendant is guilty (such as in the Brian Nichols case). Even so, a legal system that allows the State to say "we all know you are guilty so you don't get a lawyer and we don't have to follow the rules" in such a case would inevitably allow the State to apply the same treatment to get rid of people it doesn't like because of their politics, or because their business is in competition with the Mayor's business, or whatever. Also, if we were to follow your prescription and condemn lawyers who defend "obviously guilty" people, then such people could never be brought to trial (as they are guaranteed the right to a legal defense, under the Bill of Rights) and so we would have to release them. The only alternatives would be to permit show trials in which the defendant cannot put on a defense, or allow the State to hold people indefinitely without trial. Our legal system is an adversarial system, one in which the prosecution and the defense fight it out in court and a jury decides who made the most compelling case. Often (and especially in rape trials) that means the victim has to get up and testify, and then their testimony will be questioned and cross examined, which can make them feel victimized again. But, what is a workable alternative that still ensures people can defend themselves against false accusations? I can't think of a way to take the victim's statement as gospel truth, not ask any questions of challenge anything about it, yet still allow the accused to mount a defense. Were people wrong to challenge Tawana Brawley and point out inconsistencies and impossibilities in her accusations? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #41 September 16, 2015 It truly amazes me just how ignorant many Americans are about their own Constitution. Seems to be a particular problem on the political (and especially Christian) right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #42 September 16, 2015 Another strawman. A lawyer is there to ensure the law is followed and the persons constitutional rights are not infringed.. no where does it say you have to mind fuck the jury, baffle them with bullshit until they forget the facts and and grind them down with weeks on weeks of boring details until they are just ready to just ignore the whole thing call your client innocent and leave while knowingly let your client lie the whole time. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #43 September 16, 2015 kallend It truly amazes me just how ignorant many Americans are about their own Constitution. Seems to be a particular problem on the political (and especially Christian) right. It truly amazes me how some people can be such assholes when they think they are making clever attacks to posters. Seems to be a particular problem on the educational (and especially college level) left. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #44 September 17, 2015 >Another strawman. A lawyer is there to ensure the law is followed and the >persons constitutional rights are not infringed.. no where does it say you have >to mind fuck the jury, baffle them with bullshit until they forget the facts and >and grind them down with weeks on weeks of boring details until they are just >ready to just ignore the whole thing call your client innocent and leave while >knowingly let your client lie the whole time. Have you ever actually been in a courtroom? (A real one, not on TV) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #45 September 17, 2015 I'm certain Hillary felt that she should believe all of the women who accused Bill and that they should be heard.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #46 September 17, 2015 airdvrI'm certain Hillary felt that she should believe all of the women who accused Bill and that they should be heard. Heh, or maybe she was for it before she was against it.gI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #47 September 17, 2015 Yes I have been on the stand as an officer many times to answer questions about my reports, and hear the 100 ways their defendants did not comit the crime. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,156 #48 September 17, 2015 AnvilbrotherYes I have been on the stand as an officer many times to answer questions about my reports, and hear the 100 ways their defendants did not comit the crime. And did the defendants have lawyers? Or were lawyers only allowed for the not-guilty ones?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #49 September 17, 2015 QuoteAnd did the defendants have lawyers? Or were lawyers only allowed for the not-guilty ones? Well, sure they had lawyers. But the lawyers for the guilty ones were scumbags, while the lawyers for the innocent ones were virtuously fightign against the out-of-control liberal establishment. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #50 September 17, 2015 DanGQuoteAnd did the defendants have lawyers? Or were lawyers only allowed for the not-guilty ones? Well, sure they had lawyers. But the lawyers for the guilty ones that lied and cheatedwere scumbags, while the lawyers for the innocent ones able to prove their case without lying or cheating were virtuously fightign against the out-of-control liberal establishment as they should all be. FIFYI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
