|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 02 2013 23:38 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:34 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? There's a difference between detecting a lie and getting to the truth. They may not have an advantage in the first but I find it very hard to believe they aren't better in the lather, if based on nothing else than their training in interrogation techniques. In America our interrogation techniques suck. Interrogating witnesses is such a long and emotionally draining process that innocent people "confess" to the crime about 45% of the time. And when interrogators lie about how much evidence they have that false confession rate rockets to like 95%. When you're in a closed environment for double digit hours with no food or sleep and the only social interaction you have is people telling you you're guilty, your grip on reality starts to erode. http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/kassin_fong_1999.pdf
That has very little to do with the matter at hand and those sort of interrogation techniques are commonly not allowed. Police are not allowed to deprive people of food and water for long periods of time. They also need to charge people within a set period of time, normally 24-48 hours. The arrested part can also demand counsel at any point. Although the study is good to prove that those interrogation techniques are not accurate, they are also not widely used.
|
On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement.
That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense.
|
On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense.
Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation.
|
On July 02 2013 23:45 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:41 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:32 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). Nothing fair about that perception...? I don't know..I mean, it's definitely a very common thing to repeatedly ask a question in differing ways to get a specific word choice you want a witness to say. And that's just one example, there are many. Is there too much distrust of lawyers, probably. But it isn't entirely unwarranted. Their job is at least partially to get into and out of situations on technicalities and half-truths. My point is that the perception is far less warranted than people think. There isn't as much grey area between "advocacy" and "misrepresentation" as most would believe. In fact, the most compelling advocates are the ones that are the ones stay closest to the truth. Jurors and judges have finely tuned bullshit detectors. If a lawyer tries to float something by them that is not true, the judge and especially jurors will punish the lawyer and his client for it. Perhaps more importantly, a lawyer does his client a great disservice when he is not honest with his client about the merits of a given argument, position, or case. Sure, my clients don't like it when I tell them that they're going to get killed at trial, but if I don't tell them as such, then I'd be exposing them to far greater harm than that to which they'd be exposed by merely trying to reach a settlement before trial. The overall point is that there are many cases where the truth is not found. Presumably sometimes it is never found, and sometimes someone gets released months of years after the case because someone made an oopsie. Daphreak was notably talking about how great the judicial system is, and I agree that it's pretty awesome, but let's not pretend that it's perfect.
I don't know one attorney who couldn't spend hours bitching about one aspect of the judicial system or another. No, it's not perfect. But yes, it is pretty damned good at doing what it is tasked to do.
|
On July 02 2013 23:45 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:39 Plansix wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. Of course i call a lawyer if shit happens (in fact, i did only a couple of month back, to get out of something which i was clearly guilty of). I would not call them liars though. But "twisters". Alot of them. Not all, mind you, but alot. Also, i might've misunderstood you, so i apologize if i did. Blaming an attorney from defending a guilty party is horrible and totally self serving, in my opinion. The tradition started with John Adams defending the soldiers at the Boston Massacre, in which he won the case. It is based on the idea that no matter how guilty a person may appear, they deserve to have someone defend them against the government and the rule of the mob. Being a public defender or criminal defense attorney is a principled practice and should not be sullied by the few “criminal attorneys” out there. I disagree. I didn't say that defending is wrong. I said trying to get "his record cleared" is. If a lawyer wants to try to get a criminal the appropriate amount of jailtime and not what the mob/government wants him to get (simplified), best. I'm all for it. But that's not what happens, don't be all surprised, you're basically bullshitting now. You know that the smallest amount of lawyers are actually trying to serve the laws.
That isn't their job. They are required to uphold the law in general, but they main requirement is to defend their client to the best of their ability. They do not care if justice was served, because that is a conflict. The burden is on the government to bring a successful case, and if they can't do it, they person should not have been charged. Law isn't concerned with righteous judgement in any way.
|
On July 02 2013 23:45 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:38 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 23:34 nihlon wrote:On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? There's a difference between detecting a lie and getting to the truth. They may not have an advantage in the first but I find it very hard to believe they aren't better in the lather, if based on nothing else than their training in interrogation techniques. In America our interrogation techniques suck. Interrogating witnesses is such a long and emotionally draining process that innocent people "confess" to the crime about 45% of the time. And when interrogators lie about how much evidence they have that false confession rate rockets to like 95%. When you're in a closed environment for double digit hours with no food or sleep and the only social interaction you have is people telling you you're guilty, your grip on reality starts to erode. http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/kassin_fong_1999.pdf That has very little to do with the matter at hand and those sort of interrogation techniques are commonly not allowed. Police are not allowed to deprive people of food and water for long periods of time. They also need to charge people within a set period of time, normally 24-48 hours. The arrested part can also demand counsel at any point. Although the study is good to prove that those interrogation techniques are not accurate, they are also not widely used.
Fair enough. I was under the impression that's still how most interrogations went. I guess now we just ship people overseas and water board them when we need info 
|
On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense.
So how can you be surprised that people who actively trying to "free" a criminal are considered liars/lawtwisters? Of course i call someone like this if i not want to pay something even though i clearly would have to.
That isn't their job. They are required to uphold the law in general, but they main requirement is to defend their client to the best of their ability. They do not care if justice was served, because that is a conflict. The burden is on the government to bring a successful case, and if they can't do it, they person should not have been charged. Law isn't concerned with righteous judgement in any way.
Again, what was the point of you discussing with me?
|
On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation.
Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous.
|
On July 02 2013 23:34 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? There's a difference between detecting a lie and getting to the truth. They may not have an advantage in the first but I find it very hard to believe they aren't better in the lather, if based on nothing else than their training in interrogation techniques.
My point was that the appeal to authority of "These guys are the police and since THEY belive him, Zimmerman must be telling the truth" is wrong. There is really no reason to believe that their judgment of the validity of his statement is better than that of flipping a coin - however sad that may sound.
|
On July 02 2013 23:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation. Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous.
The outcome is not necessarily dishonest but the means are. Screwing around may sometimes be used to defend a person's constitutional rights, but other times it's just practical. That said we won't agree about the core principles of honesty because yours are based on the constitution and I'm allowed to go out of the box given that I'm not a straight arrow lawyer .
I want to stress that I'm not saying I think lowly of lawyers for this. It's the job.
|
On July 02 2013 23:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation. Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous.
It's not a "right" to pay alot of money to get a good lawyer and therefore dodge whatever convict you would get, is it? I'm not too sure, since it's 'murica, but i don't really think that's the case. As i said. A lawyer making sure that his client isn't getting lynchjustice/mobjustice, fine. A lawyer trying to get the pedophile back on the street immediately, well, i'd better not say what i wish the pedophile to do.
|
This is another day of "And these are the prosecution witnesses?!!?!?"
|
On July 02 2013 23:55 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:49 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation. Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous. It's not a "right" to pay alot of money to get a good lawyer and therefore dodge whatever convict you would get, is it? I'm not too sure, since it's 'murica, but i don't really think that's the case. As i said. A lawyer making sure that his client isn't getting lynchjustice/mobjustice, fine. A lawyer trying to get the pedophile back on the street immediately, well, i'd better not say what i wish the pedophile to do.
That first sentence is a rather silly presumption. Paying a lot of money for a good attorney doesn't guarantee anything. If the State has the evidence to secure a conviction, it can do whatever it wants.
|
On July 02 2013 23:52 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:49 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation. Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous. The outcome is not necessarily dishonest but the means are. Screwing around may sometimes be used to defend a person's constitutional rights, but other times it's just practical. That said we won't agree about the core principles of honesty because yours are based on the constitution and I'm allowed to go out of the box given that I'm not a straight arrow lawyer .
There is nothing dishonest about protecting your client from a flawed case where the other side screwed up. It keeps the government honest and protects everyone from flawed criminal charges. When the police and DA know that their case will be run through with a fine toothed comb, they are more likely to be behave well and do a good job.
Anyways, I have worked in probation before, and most cases are cut and dry. Most crimes are not committed by masterminds and dig their own grave long before they ever get into court.
|
On July 02 2013 23:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:55 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:49 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation. Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous. It's not a "right" to pay alot of money to get a good lawyer and therefore dodge whatever convict you would get, is it? I'm not too sure, since it's 'murica, but i don't really think that's the case. As i said. A lawyer making sure that his client isn't getting lynchjustice/mobjustice, fine. A lawyer trying to get the pedophile back on the street immediately, well, i'd better not say what i wish the pedophile to do. That first sentence is a rather silly presumption. Paying a lot of money for a good attorney doesn't guarantee anything. If the State has the evidence to secure a conviction, it can do whatever it wants.
What about if the state doesn't? Want to tell me that every case is bulletproof? Especially with the jury-system? And you're right, it doesn't guarantee anything. But it strengthens your chances. Right or wrong?
Edit: because i missed it, is that a witness of the prosecution?
edit2 nvm, judge just said it
|
I think the prosecution in this case just doesn't understand its job.
Right now they're going on, and it seems to me, they're trying to plant a reasonable doubt that the defense's story is flawed...That's not their job. Their job is to prove his guilt, not prove its plausible Zimmerman did or didn't do all these things.
|
On July 02 2013 23:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:55 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:49 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation. Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous. It's not a "right" to pay alot of money to get a good lawyer and therefore dodge whatever convict you would get, is it? I'm not too sure, since it's 'murica, but i don't really think that's the case. As i said. A lawyer making sure that his client isn't getting lynchjustice/mobjustice, fine. A lawyer trying to get the pedophile back on the street immediately, well, i'd better not say what i wish the pedophile to do. That first sentence is a rather silly presumption. Paying a lot of money for a good attorney doesn't guarantee anything. If the State has the evidence to secure a conviction, it can do whatever it wants.
It doesn't but wouldn't you agree that people pay more for experienced lawyers who have better odds of securing a better outcome for their client? This begs the question, who's getting justice, the guy with the public defendant who's fresh out of some university at the back end of Iowa, or the guy with the ivy league lawyer who has an army of lawyers behind him and knows how to maneuver?
The outcome could be vastly different and yet the evidence could be the same. In some cases it may just be due to procedure and such.
|
Is blood susceptible to gravity? LOL I love this guy.
|
On July 02 2013 23:58 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:55 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:49 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation. Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous. It's not a "right" to pay alot of money to get a good lawyer and therefore dodge whatever convict you would get, is it? I'm not too sure, since it's 'murica, but i don't really think that's the case. As i said. A lawyer making sure that his client isn't getting lynchjustice/mobjustice, fine. A lawyer trying to get the pedophile back on the street immediately, well, i'd better not say what i wish the pedophile to do. That first sentence is a rather silly presumption. Paying a lot of money for a good attorney doesn't guarantee anything. If the State has the evidence to secure a conviction, it can do whatever it wants. What about if the state doesn't? Want to tell me that every case is bulletproof? Especially with the jury-system? And you're right, it doesn't guarantee anything. But it strengthens your chances. Right or wrong? Edit: because i missed it, is that a witness of the prosecution?
If the state doesn't have evidence to secure a conviction, that's their problem. As the people who created our judicial system said "It is better to let 100 guilty men go free than to send one innocent man to prison."
|
On July 02 2013 23:58 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:57 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:55 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:49 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:47 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 23:46 xDaunt wrote:On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. That's precisely the job of every criminal defense attorney: to do everything in their power to help their client get acquitted or otherwise minimize the punishment. This is a very important function within the criminal justice system in that it keeps the government honest when prosecuting its citizens. Frankly, it's a rather shitty and thankless job (especially for public defenders) that really isn't for everyone. It takes a special kind of attorney to be able to deal with all of the horseshit that it's involved in criminal defense. Dicking about with procedure may be their job and it's rightly viewed as dishonest. I don't hate the lawyers for it but that explains part of the sentiment that the job is about manipulation. Since when is protecting an individual's constitutional rights to due process "dishonest?" This is precisely my point. The public's perception of lawyers is largely ridiculous. It's not a "right" to pay alot of money to get a good lawyer and therefore dodge whatever convict you would get, is it? I'm not too sure, since it's 'murica, but i don't really think that's the case. As i said. A lawyer making sure that his client isn't getting lynchjustice/mobjustice, fine. A lawyer trying to get the pedophile back on the street immediately, well, i'd better not say what i wish the pedophile to do. That first sentence is a rather silly presumption. Paying a lot of money for a good attorney doesn't guarantee anything. If the State has the evidence to secure a conviction, it can do whatever it wants. What about if the state doesn't? Want to tell me that every case is bulletproof? Especially with the jury-system? And you're right, it doesn't guarantee anything. But it strengthens your chances. Right or wrong?
Of course it strengthens the defendant's chances. However, that's not the point.
As a society, we have to make a choice regarding what powers that we're going to allot our government to prosecute us. As I mentioned earlier, defense attorneys provide an important check against the government. What you are suggesting is that attorneys should not defend clients who are guilty. In other words, you are suggesting the removal of an important check on government power against its citizens. Sure, it sucks every time that a pedophile is put back onto the streets because the government couldn't get the conviction. However, the alternative of the state having freer reign to convict innocent people is worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
