EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 242
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
crms
United States11933 Posts
| ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On July 02 2013 23:51 Ghostcom wrote: 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. I'd argue that the statement is worth more than a piece of metal but I give you that it shouldn't hold much weight in a case like this. Not feeling up to doing the necessary fact checking to continue arguing.  | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:07 crms wrote: What a goofy walk off point by the prosecution. Did he learn that trick as an undergrad? He knows he is on TV, and really needs something goofy, or funny for the press to talk about instead of how his case has fallen apart. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:04 xDaunt wrote: Of course it strengthens the defendant's chances. However, that's not the point. It actually is, if we're still on the page of public opinion of lawyers. 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. No. I made myself pretty clear, and since it's not the first time we talk, please take the time and read again. There's no "in other words", don't try to get all lawyered up - i made myself clear, take it, don't twist it. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
Edit: And I highly suggest you re-read xDaunt's posts and reassess your own argument. Why is it the lawyer's fault (in this case receiving blame) that their clients can afford their services? That seems pretty dumb. | ||
|
Donger
United States147 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:09 m4inbrain wrote: It actually is, if we're still on the page of public opinion of lawyers. No. I made myself pretty clear, and since it's not the first time we talk, please take the time and read again. There's no "in other words", don't try to get all lawyered up - i made myself clear, take it, don't twist it. Just to clarify. You're suggesting that if the defendants lawyer believes his client is guilty than he should not seek to get his crimes acquitted? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:09 m4inbrain wrote: It actually is, if we're still on the page of public opinion of lawyers. No. I made myself pretty clear, and since it's not the first time we talk, please take the time and read again. There's no "in other words", don't try to get all lawyered up - i made myself clear, take it, don't twist it. You are right, you did make yourself clear. This is exactly what you said earlier: 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. What you are suggesting is that a lawyer should not do everything in his power to advance his client's interests, including trying to get a pedophile immediately back on the streets when he has been charged with something. So what are we supposed to do, give lawyers discretion as to when they should vigorously defend their clients or simply waive the white flag because they think their client is guilty? You'd basically be making the lawyer the judge and jury in the criminal system, which is ridiculous for obvious reasons. There is a reason why lawyers are ethically commanded to be advocates for their clients and their clients' interests. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:15 Judicator wrote: No m4inbrain, you are splitting hairs. You are suggesting that the guilty don't deserve a defense lawyer which is a terrible logic to operate on and pretty impractical. I'm splitting hairs? Quote me where i said that please, because for some weird reason, i don't really remember. I actually remember that i said that a lawyer trying to get a fair conviction is a good thing. Somehow you missed that, but it's okay, takes me no time to say it again. I also remember saying that lawyers trying to clean their clients vests is a bad thing. That doesn't mean that you should get rid of lawyers alltogether, this "assumption" was made by you and xDaunt. ->i<- never said or meant that. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
I mean you can understand why people don't like lawyers. Sure you can argue that it's what duty demands, but if the outcome is a pedophile not getting prosecuted or pulled from society, then we have a problem. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:17 m4inbrain wrote: I'm splitting hairs? Quote me where i said that please, because for some weird reason, i don't really remember. I actually remember that i said that a lawyer trying to get a fair conviction is a good thing. Somehow you missed that, but it's okay, takes me no time to say it again. I also remember saying that lawyers trying to clean their clients vests is a bad thing. That doesn't mean that you should get rid of lawyers alltogether, this "assumption" was made by you and xDaunt. ->i<- never said or meant that. You are suggesting exactly that. 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. How is that not splitting hairs? You are saying the lawyer should not do their job in certain situations, how the hell does that make sense? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote: Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:20 Judicator wrote: How is that not splitting hairs? You are saying the lawyer should not do their job in certain situations, how the hell does that make sense? Does it make more sense to have a child molester back on the street? Or does the job supersede that? On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. Alright | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote: Does it make more sense to have a child molester back on the street? Or does the job supersede that? The other concerns supersede it. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
I'm sorry I'm getting a bit lost in the argument, which concerns supersede which? | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
The other witness (which was supposed to help the prosecution) basically said that Martin had Zimmerman in a ground and pound position. If this witness holds up, then the whole thing will be dropped. Martin saying "Why are you following me?" doesn't necessarily mean zimmermann started the fight and it will be hard to prove that. In my opinion, the officer's testimony that zimmermann was relieved at the fact there was a recording of the incident is pretty huge. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote: Does it make more sense to have a child molester back on the street? Or does the job supersede that? The job supersede that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The system would collapse if that was the case. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:18 Djzapz wrote: Well yeah but are you also not even more ethically commanded NOT to put a pedophile back on the street if he's a danger to children? Or is that concern secondary to the job? Is it just no longer a concern at all because of your job? I mean you can understand why people don't like lawyers. Sure you can argue that it's what duty demands, but if the outcome is a pedophile not getting prosecuted or pulled from society, then we have a problem. No, not really - your ethical consideration is to make sure your client receives a full and fair criminal defense, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. As a lawyer, it's not your job to make a judgment call as to your client's guilt; that's the judge's job - and the judge's only job. Yes, to us laymen, that sounds like a pretty bad case of moral myopia, but under an adversarial common law system, it's what has to be done. A sidenote: you're not alone if you don't really like that style of lawyering; Napoleon didn't either. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: No. Basically all other interests are subordinated to those of the client. The only exceptions are interests concerning the integrity of the legal profession and judicial system. For example, the lawyer can represent the pedophile, but he can't knowingly allow false or untrue testimony into evidence. So that's justice for you, making sure that your client roams free again? Because that's what it comes down to, justice, isn't it? | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 03 2013 00:23 Judicator wrote: The job supersede that. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The system would collapse if that was the case. I think that a fair compromise would be that for some crimes like rape and murder, the lawyer should look for opportunities to diminish the extent of the prosecution, but not run for the acquittal. That said, the problems and loopholes with procedure are probably unavoidable and they also protect innocents... So it's kind of a mess I suppose. On July 03 2013 00:24 Shady Sands wrote: No, not really - your ethical consideration is to make sure your client receives a full and fair criminal defense, regardless of whether he is guilty or not. As a lawyer, it's not your job to make a judgment call as to your client's guilt; that's the judge's job - and the judge's only job. Yes, to us laymen, that sounds like a pretty bad case of moral myopia, but under an adversarial common law system, it's what has to be done. A sidenote: you're not alone if you don't really like that style of lawyering; Napoleon didn't either. I don't like it but I don't have a solution. That said, I kind of wish people who are guilty didn't get acquittal because due to competent lawyers - which has less to do with the lawyers and more to do with glitches in the system. | ||
| ||
