|
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 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. Alright
If the evidence is stacked so highly against this hypothetical defendant that you call him a child molester, chances are they will get convicted no matter how good their defense attorney is.
You guys are making it sound like, with the right attorney and the right amount of money, anyone can get out of anything. A better attorney may be able to spin certain arguments, or pick apart testimony on the stand, but the evidence will always be the evidence, and if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer.
|
On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. 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?
Justice is the legal system gather sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client.
What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA? Because these are the "loop holes" that you are talking about. Normally, when people get acquitted of crimes they are clearly guilty of, it is due to poor practices by the state in bringing the criminal action against them.
|
On July 03 2013 00:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. 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? Justice is the legal system gather sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client. What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA?
Could you rephrase the question, since i can't really follow?
|
On July 03 2013 00:25 Djzapz wrote:
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.
That's what xDaunt said earlier, the lawyer also has to minimize punishment.
|
On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. 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?
Justice has nothing to do with it. It's the duty of the attorney to try to get his client acquitted of the charges or otherwise minimize the sentence.
Again I ask you the following: Would you rather the state be free to convict innocent people? That's the alternative. I'd rather make it easier to let guilty people go than make it easier for innocent people to be convicted of crimes that they didn't commit.
|
On July 03 2013 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote: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: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. Alright If the evidence is stacked so highly against this hypothetical defendant that you call him a child molester, chances are they will get convicted no matter how good their defense attorney is. You guys are making it sound like, with the right attorney and the right amount of money, anyone can get out of anything. A better attorney may be able to spin certain arguments, or pick apart testimony on the stand, but the evidence will always be the evidence, and if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer.
OJ Simpson.... IMO the jury accepted that the state tried to frame a guilty man.
|
On July 03 2013 00:30 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:27 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. 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? Justice is the legal system gathering sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client. What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA? Could you rephrase the question, since i can't really follow?
What do you think an attorney should do if he knows his client is guilty, but also know that the case against his client is terrible because the police collected shitty evidence?
|
On July 03 2013 00:33 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote: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: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. Alright If the evidence is stacked so highly against this hypothetical defendant that you call him a child molester, chances are they will get convicted no matter how good their defense attorney is. You guys are making it sound like, with the right attorney and the right amount of money, anyone can get out of anything. A better attorney may be able to spin certain arguments, or pick apart testimony on the stand, but the evidence will always be the evidence, and if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer. OJ Simpson.... IMO the jury accepted that the state tried to frame a guilty man.
The case against OJ was terrible and flawed due to poor practices by the police. The state shouldn't be able to convict people if they have shitting cases.
|
can this guy just say the words? Holy shit.. 'mf' 'a curse word' we're all adults and a man's freedom is on the line you dolt.
|
Who is this guy? I missed the beginning.
|
On July 03 2013 00:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. 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? Justice has nothing to do with it. It's the duty of the attorney to try to get his client acquitted of the charges or otherwise minimize the sentence. Again I ask you the following: Would you rather the state be free to convict innocent people? That's the alternative. I'd rather make it easier to let guilty people go than make it easier for innocent people to be convicted of crimes that they didn't commit.
It's not "the" alternative. It's "one" alternative. But fair enough, so a lawyer isn't bound to achieve "justice", but just the best possible outcome for the money he gets. Well, i don't agree to that, and that's why so many people think lawyers are scum.
Another alternatve would be to get lawyers to follow justice. The duty should be to achieve that. Wether that means conviction or acqu..(don't know the right word). I agree that this might not really work, but the current system doesn't work either, at least sometimes. As i said, the lawyer doing his duty to get the criminal roam free again is doing a great injustice towards the party that lost someone or something, or whatever the fellony was.
|
Why the hell did the State call this guy as a witness? This is the kind of shit that every defense lawyer dreams of getting admitted.
|
On July 03 2013 00:33 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:27 ZasZ. wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote: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: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. Alright If the evidence is stacked so highly against this hypothetical defendant that you call him a child molester, chances are they will get convicted no matter how good their defense attorney is. You guys are making it sound like, with the right attorney and the right amount of money, anyone can get out of anything. A better attorney may be able to spin certain arguments, or pick apart testimony on the stand, but the evidence will always be the evidence, and if the jury is convinced someone is a child molester, he will get put away no matter how much money he spent on his lawyer. OJ Simpson.... IMO the jury accepted that the state tried to frame a guilty man.
So your response when I use the phrase "chances are," is to cite the most high-profile American murder trial in the last 25 years? Yeah, a guilty man will go free from time to time, which is the price we pay for having a system in place that tries like hell to convict as few innocent people as possible. In that case however, and in most cases where an evidently guilty man walks, the fault lies with the police work or the district attorney's office in their inability to bring a strong enough case.
Defendants are guilty until proven innocent, and the only way their guilt can be proven is if the state does everything within their power to prosecute and the defense attorney does everything within their power to get them acquitted. At that point, all that is left is the evidence. If you have one side or the other or both thinking about justice instead of their legal duty, someone's constitutional rights are going by the wayside, and the case becomes more about lawyering and less about evidence.
|
On July 03 2013 00:40 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. 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? Justice has nothing to do with it. It's the duty of the attorney to try to get his client acquitted of the charges or otherwise minimize the sentence. Again I ask you the following: Would you rather the state be free to convict innocent people? That's the alternative. I'd rather make it easier to let guilty people go than make it easier for innocent people to be convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. It's not "the" alternative. It's "one" alternative. But fair enough, so a lawyer isn't bound to achieve "justice", but just the best possible outcome for the money he gets. Well, i don't agree to that, and that's why so many people think lawyers are scum. Another alternatve would be to get lawyers to follow justice. The duty should be to achieve that. Wether that means conviction or acqu..(don't know the right word). I agree that this might not really work, but the current system doesn't work either, at least sometimes. As i said, the lawyer doing his duty to get the criminal roam free again is doing a great injustice towards the party that lost someone or something, or whatever the fellony was.
All the systems are flawed and no system works perfectly. If you don't want innocent people in jail due to police error, this is the price you pay.
|
I am so confused why this is a state witness. I am just waiting for something to change tone to make sense, but it never comes.
|
On July 03 2013 00:40 xDaunt wrote:
Why the hell did the State call this guy as a witness? This is the kind of shit that every defense lawyer dreams of getting admitted.
who is this guy? I missed the introductions.
this guy is really pissing me off.
'i dont like to curse in front of ladies' mother fucker, they are looking at pictures of beaten men and dead bodies daily. I think they can handle themselves.
|
On July 03 2013 00:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:30 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. 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? Justice is the legal system gathering sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client. What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA? Could you rephrase the question, since i can't really follow? What do you think an attorney should do if he knows his client is guilty, but also know that the case against his client is terrible because the police collected shitty evidence?
I can tell you what my consciousness would tell me to do. If the attorney knows his client is guilty and uses loopholes to get him free, he should lose his license in my opinion. It's a dilemma that i don't know how to solve, but basically getting a jail-free-card should not be possible.
All the systems are flawed and no system works perfectly. If you don't want innocent people in jail due to police error, this is the price you pay.
That i can agree upon, there's no system right now that works flawless. But the case you wanted me to comment on is a lawyer knowing that his client is guilty, there is no innocent person to put in jail due to policeerror. Which btw still happens alot, even with this system.
|
On July 03 2013 00:43 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:40 xDaunt wrote:
Why the hell did the State call this guy as a witness? This is the kind of shit that every defense lawyer dreams of getting admitted. who is this guy? I missed the introductions.
Some guy who talked with Zimmerman about what happened and published those statements into a book.
|
On July 03 2013 00:43 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2013 00:34 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:30 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:27 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2013 00:24 m4inbrain wrote:On July 03 2013 00:21 xDaunt wrote: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. 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? Justice is the legal system gathering sufficient evidence to prove that that his client should be placed in jail and presenting that to a jury. His job is to assure that his client's rights are protected and to seek the best possible outcome for his client. What would you have an attorney do if they know their client is guilty, but the case against them is terrible due to lazy police and a crappy DA? Could you rephrase the question, since i can't really follow? What do you think an attorney should do if he knows his client is guilty, but also know that the case against his client is terrible because the police collected shitty evidence? I can tell you what my consciousness would tell me to do. If the attorney knows his client is guilty and uses loopholes to get him free, he should lose his license in my opinion. It's a dilemma that i don't know how to solve, but basically getting a jail-free-card should not be possible.
Do you realize that you are advocating the absolute destruction of the legal system? Are you even taking the time understand the consequences of what you're saying before you say it?
|
Hey bros let's stop arguing about the judicial system and the merits of attorneys and focus on this particular case. Maybe m4 and co. can start a new thread to debate such issues. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
