EPTpeople need to adopt the orals defense board strategy and bring coffee and bagels to their sentencing
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 35
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
people need to adopt the orals defense board strategy and bring coffee and bagels to their sentencing | ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On December 11 2012 10:20 HunterX11 wrote: A good example of this is how a huge influence on sentencing is whether or not the judge has eaten lunch http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/04/11/justice-is-served-but-more-so-after-lunch-how-food-breaks-sway-the-decisions-of-judges/ Yikes. I don't want to think about how this type of thing influences the way I grade papers... | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On December 11 2012 10:39 frogrubdown wrote: Yikes. I don't want to think about how this type of thing influences the way I grade papers... Actually the hypothesis behind it is so simple and yet so powerful as it has effect on so many areas of life. If you look at many situations through the prism of that hypothesis they look so easily explained by it. Of course that is deceptive psychological effect, as the reality will be of course outcome of complex interactions between many more mechanisms, but it is still extremely interesting and I hope there will be more research into this. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
On December 11 2012 10:56 mcc wrote: Actually the hypothesis behind it is so simple and yet so powerful as it has effect on so many areas of life. If you look at many situations through the prism of that hypothesis they look so easily explained by it. Of course that is deceptive psychological effect, as the reality will be of course outcome of complex interactions between many more mechanisms, but it is still extremely interesting and I hope there will be more research into this. Unfortunately, far too many legal minds concerned with jurisprudence spend too much time looking at laws, and consequently the fact that people are involved at every nexus of legal decision can fade away from importance. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 11 2012 11:14 farvacola wrote: Unfortunately, far too many legal minds concerned with jurisprudence spend too much time looking at laws, and consequently the fact that people are involved at every nexus of legal decision can fade away from importance. haha that sounds like a familiar analysis  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
legal realism provides the most space for a serious and scientific study of the entirety of law. the way i'd go about explaining it is through asking the question of, what are the sources and mechanism of moral improvement? clearly, reflecting on how well a particular existing moral system works from the outside (another system of moral judgement) is a vital part of this process. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
from the way we're presenting it here I can't see why anybody would try to take that stance... of course maybe I'm already biased against that way of looking at things? anyway it seems utterly naive | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
historically legal realism is animated by a critical concern about law's social impact and whether it is fulfilling its stated noble purpose. this is by now well understood, but its original skeptical, theoretical edge is more blunted. legal realism : pragmatism | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 11 2012 12:48 oneofthem wrote: positivism is not the other position per se. it is a different kind of movement with a concern to separate legal justification from moral philosophy. Ah, ok, gotcha. Well ain't that just a legitimation crisis waiting to happen... | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
oh wait | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I just don't think it's interesting because I don't see how positivism is a serious position | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On December 11 2012 05:06 BluePanther wrote: In the US, Lawyer is a (professional) doctoral degree. It's three years, post-undergrad. It's also probably one of the hardest graduate schools to get into at more prestigious schools. The only program I'd compare it to in difficulty is medical school. It's not really the same as it is in Europe. Most lawyers also have a degree in something else as well. "Law" really isn't any sort of undergraduate degree in the USA. I am unsure as to how you rank it specifically, but in Denmark, the hardest studies from an academic minimum level is by far physics and its relatives in biochemistry and nanotechnology. Law is a lot of rote learning like biology as far as I know It is not as hard as medicine, but neither is it close to the lackluster levels seen in some humaniora like litterature study. The law-education I have had was basics presented by the local state prosecuter and it was pretty easy compared to the physics I have had throughout my education. If I wanted to excel in it I would have to use more rote learning, but it really wasn't as logically taxing. I would imagine that rhetorics and the specifics of culpability would increase the difficulty considerably. Again, it is interpretive, debating and rote learning as opposed to the logical thinking, which does increase the chance of someone passing exams on nothing but a well timed bluff and a learning a few basic words. I would love to see someone pass a statistics or flow dynamics exam without preparing a lot! When it comes to the job, danish lawyers lack some of the incentives US lawyers have. The damages in civil cases are a lot smaller than in USA and that is making a "win to get payed" model completely unsustainable. Therefore people choose it for the career instead of the money. The relatively few lawyers I have met have had their view on reality coloured more by their job than most others in different professions. The defence lawyers are respectful to everybody and see the world a good deal from the defendants side and are therefore generally left-leaning in all sides of life. The judges generally are buried in interpretation of laws and they are often so focused on interpreting and looking at precedence to care much about politics. They tend to get irritated at small details and those details will determine their political stance. The prosecuter is cooperating with the police in judging if he/she finds a case court-worthy. While US prosecuters are almost devoid of responsibility towards the defendant, that is not the case in Denmark since prosecution has to appear relatively neutral in criminal cases. The attorneys generally do not have to do any investiation since the police has to provide facts and not congestion. The ones I know are coloured by police etiquette. They are very frank and straight foreward. I do not think lawyers in Denmark have much of an advantage in politics. Neither are they that interested in it since politicians have a low base salary. Most of our politicians (26 %) have no education or a random bachelor, second most (22 %) have a political science education, third most are teachers (15 %), fourth and fifth (both 6%) are lawyers and economists. Next are health care workers (no doctors), craftsmen, journalists and social science masters. 3 educated in farming/soil science which is low given the amount of farmers. There is a single IT-educated and a singe engineer both elected for the far right party. No mathematicians, biologists, physicists or chemists. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
On December 11 2012 06:42 Nevuk wrote: Has anyone mentioned McConnell filibustering his own bill? http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/mitch-mcconnell-objects-to-himself-so-do-we/ edit : Also, Silver isn't speaking anecdotally about internal polling, he's been provided with internal polling by more than one campaign and turned down offers from others. The Obama campaign provided him their internal polling 2008, he declined the same offer in 2012 for a number of reasons (The polls were less accurate than the average poll, he didn't want to appear biased being the main two) McConnell is such a dumbass lmao, it makes my life. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 11 2012 13:52 radiatoren wrote: neither is it close to the lackluster levels seen in some humaniora like litterature study. that's because literature is actually the hardest discipline. if they enforced standards everyone would fail. and so it's the easiest. | ||
|
Sub40APM
6336 Posts
On December 11 2012 13:52 radiatoren wrote: When it comes to the job, danish lawyers lack some of the incentives US lawyers have. The damages in civil cases are a lot smaller than in USA and that is making a "win to get payed" model completely unsustainable. Therefore people choose it for the career instead of the money. Most American lawyers are not wealthy, if i recall correctly the ABA published data that shows an average lawyer makes sllightly below the median national income. The reason why so many people think lawyers are rich is because they focus on the top, either those who work in big law firms and for whom starting salaries are 160,000 a year in the first year or the people who are really good at suing [these are the ones I suppose your post refers to], those guys can become millionaires with the right client. But to the guy you are responding to, I think you are way off base. To get into an elite American law school you have to do well on one standardized test. Yes, its true that the law schools choose to accept the top 3-4% of the test takers, but the actual test is not that hard. And if you have an inclination towards logic then its downright easy. There is no math on it, just a reading sections and two logic sections and thats it. The actual education in law school is again hard in a subjective kind of way, all students are rated on a curve so that if all your classmates are smarter than you than you will be worse off but in general its relatively easy to end up being a median student. But the only grades that matter are the ones for your first year, where you learn 6 pre-set subjects with everyone else. You learn almost nothing that is applicable to the practice of law. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On December 11 2012 14:03 sam!zdat wrote: that's because literature is actually the hardest discipline. if they enforced standards everyone would fail. and so it's the easiest. Well, some people have down to 4 hours each week of actual education. The average on humaniora is 7 to 12 hours and far below natural science at 17 to 19 hours and further behind technical science at 20 to 24 hours. So it is it more a question of the universities slacking far too much on the standards. Even the students are frustrated. Wtih self-study humaniora is closer, at 29 to 30 hours each weak as opposed to 35 to 36 hours for natural science and 41 hours for technical science. The numbers are from an official government revision report from last year: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http://www.rigsrevisionen.dk/media%282322,1030%29/16-2011.pdf&act=url | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
if you know me at all, you know that I enthusiastically agree that education is far too easy edit: it's because we've gotten this idea that education is for training a workforce that's it's degenerated. that's not what education is for | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On December 11 2012 14:26 Sub40APM wrote: Most American lawyers are not wealthy, if i recall correctly the ABA published data that shows an average lawyer makes sllightly below the median national income. The reason why so many people think lawyers are rich is because they focus on the top, either those who work in big law firms and for whom starting salaries are 160,000 a year in the first year or the people who are really good at suing [these are the ones I suppose your post refers to], those guys can become millionaires with the right client. But to the guy you are responding to, I think you are way off base. To get into an elite American law school you have to do well on one standardized test. Yes, its true that the law schools choose to accept the top 3-4% of the test takers, but the actual test is not that hard. And if you have an inclination towards logic then its downright easy. There is no math on it, just a reading sections and two logic sections and thats it. The actual education in law school is again hard in a subjective kind of way, all students are rated on a curve so that if all your classmates are smarter than you than you will be worse off but in general its relatively easy to end up being a median student. But the only grades that matter are the ones for your first year, where you learn 6 pre-set subjects with everyone else. You learn almost nothing that is applicable to the practice of law. A danish average lawyer makes 110,000 to 120,000 each year before the 50% taxation and with 10 years experience. But I was not trying to say that US lawyers make a lot of money. I was implying that damages in USA makes civil courts more attractive. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On December 11 2012 14:41 radiatoren wrote: I was implying that damages in USA makes civil courts more attractive. Also the most disgustingly litigious culture ever to grace human civilization...  | ||
| ||
