|
False negatives are a part of our adversarial system and their occurrence is merely evidence that the system is working as intended.
|
On March 07 2015 01:13 farvacola wrote:
False negatives are a part of our adversarial system and their occurrence is merely evidence that the system is working as intended.
if a system is supposed to work with errors its probably not ideal
|
On March 07 2015 01:21 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 01:13 farvacola wrote:
False negatives are a part of our adversarial system and their occurrence is merely evidence that the system is working as intended. if a system is supposed to work with errors its probably not ideal
by extension every company I've ever worked for is not ideal.
|
Errors are unavoidable in justice; the question ends up being on whom the burden of those errors should lie. The US system places so many burdens on defendants as is, that the system allows for false negatives in their favor seems a pittance.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in that conflict i'd defend the position that it depends. certainly dont think the design or intended macro design of a legal system automatically carries the day. further, even if the balance leans towards the institution, the remainder that justice isnt served(talking not only a criminal trial) is alive and true. bear that in mind, or in conscience, something i do not personally have but i hear is quite big for other ppl.
the late ruth barcan marcus popularized the idea of true contradictions in ethics and the basic idea is basically this, no, you are not allowed a peaceful night of sleep after a correct trial reached a wrong factual conclusion.
|
|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the tune might be different if we are looking at white collar crimes.
|
On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes?
victory in all senses.
|
On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses.
Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"?
|
On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"?
did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge.
|
Since a lot of this community are from 'murica and therefore have at least one assault rifle per limb, I figured you know about gun stuff.
What needs to be done to keep a fire-arm in good condition, even though it wont be shot. I want it to obtain its current state.
I will in the near future come into posession of a few professional disabled guns which have great emotional value to me and I want them to keep their current condition. Problem is that due to a language barrier and the local shooting club being full of morons (yeah, I get it. for someone who actually enjoys shooting a weapon it might be a shame that theese weapons get deactivated, but for most of them there is otherwise no way to own them legally here in germany as far as I know) or pretentious people that act like you need to study something to keep a weapon in good condition.
For the mailing process, they will be covered in some grease, but I dont know if I should remove that stuff and aplly something else, apply nothing, how often I should reapply some sort of rust protection... help 'murica 
|
On March 07 2015 05:51 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"? did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge.
No I was referencing the legal outcomes with personal ones. If it's justice for the lawyer it should be 'justice' for all involved.
|
On March 07 2015 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 05:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"? did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge. No I was referencing the legal outcomes with personal ones. If it's justice for the lawyer it should be 'justice' for all involved.
thats a completely different question. i was only responding to your initial question about lawyers and how they viewed things.
|
On March 07 2015 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 05:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"? did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge. No I was referencing the legal outcomes with personal ones. If it's justice for the lawyer it should be 'justice' for all involved. thats a completely different question. i was only responding to your initial question about lawyers and how they viewed things.
Do lawyers not have families?
|
On March 07 2015 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 05:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"? did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge. No I was referencing the legal outcomes with personal ones. If it's justice for the lawyer it should be 'justice' for all involved. thats a completely different question. i was only responding to your initial question about lawyers and how they viewed things. Do lawyers not have families?
ok, now i am confused, when you say this:
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
do you meant the client raped and murdered the lawyer's family, or raped and murdered the client's own family?
|
On March 07 2015 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 05:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"? did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge. No I was referencing the legal outcomes with personal ones. If it's justice for the lawyer it should be 'justice' for all involved. thats a completely different question. i was only responding to your initial question about lawyers and how they viewed things. Do lawyers not have families?
Presumably a lawyer will not offer to defend the guy who raped and murdered his own family. Not even in a John Grisham novel...
|
On March 07 2015 06:13 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 05:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"? did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge. No I was referencing the legal outcomes with personal ones. If it's justice for the lawyer it should be 'justice' for all involved. thats a completely different question. i was only responding to your initial question about lawyers and how they viewed things. Do lawyers not have families? Presumably a lawyer will not offer to defend the guy who raped and murdered his own family. Not even in a John Grisham novel...
they legally and ethically would be precluded from doing so; its not even a choice.
|
On March 07 2015 06:10 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 05:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"? did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge. No I was referencing the legal outcomes with personal ones. If it's justice for the lawyer it should be 'justice' for all involved. thats a completely different question. i was only responding to your initial question about lawyers and how they viewed things. Do lawyers not have families? ok, now i am confused, when you say this: Show nested quote +As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free. do you meant the client raped and murdered the lawyer's family, or raped and murdered the client's own family?
I mean it seems that when one is the lawyer they see justice in said circumstance and when that same lawyer is close to the victim they don't.
Unless you were just clarifying before saying that you would see the same outcome as justice from the perspective of the victims family as you would as the offenders lawyer? Particularly since as a lawyer, you already believe that said outcome would be justice.
|
On March 07 2015 06:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 06:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 06:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 06:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 05:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 07 2015 05:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 04:59 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 03 2015 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?
As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free.
Is that 'justice' or the 'legal system working as it should' in a lawyer's eyes? victory in all senses. Just so I'm clear, If a man raped and killed a member of your family and you knew it, but the guy was able to get off because your credibility was undermined (or something to that effect) to the point it gave the Jury a 'reasonable doubt' to believe your eye witness account. Your thought would be "Victory in all senses"? did you just change the whole premise of the question? i thought we were talking about a lawyer's knowledge. No I was referencing the legal outcomes with personal ones. If it's justice for the lawyer it should be 'justice' for all involved. thats a completely different question. i was only responding to your initial question about lawyers and how they viewed things. Do lawyers not have families? ok, now i am confused, when you say this: As an example: A lawyer all but 'legally' knows his client raped and murdered his family. But they also know the prosecution can't prove the man's 'legal guilt'. The defense wins and the man walks free. do you meant the client raped and murdered the lawyer's family, or raped and murdered the client's own family? I mean it seems that when one is the lawyer they see justice in said circumstance and when that same lawyer is close to the victim they don't. Unless you were just clarifying before saying that you would see the same outcome as justice from the perspective of the victims family as you would, as the offenders lawyer? Particularly since as a lawyer, you already believe that said outcome would be justice.
And how is this different from the usual workings of the justice system. Lets say the guy who raped your daughter is found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in jail. I'm sure that for the traumatized victim and family, 10 years is not long enough. Yet we say justice is served, because in all fairness, it probably is, regardless of what those with emotional involvement in the case think.
|
GH, you are conflating the two roles. A lawyer with personal connections to a case will almost always be prevented from playing a legal role in the proceedings, in which case their status as a lawyer is inconsequential. The converse is similarly true.
A good lawyer should recognize where his/her personal desires should be superseded by the beneficial aspects of a legal system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
