|
The Warszawa posted:Social sanction isn't really a substitute for formal sanction in the context of professional legal services, but when the Court backs up the office refusing to name and shame publicly by also not naming the offender it creates an impression of closed ranks. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the PD's office to break through those ranks or to sit quietly until they figure out how to do so. I don't disagree. I think there should be more public sanction of *Actual* misconduct. However, it seems our local PD's office can't seem to differentiate between "Brady violation" misconduct and "accidentally used the word "victim" once during a thirty minute extemporaneous closing argument" misconduct. Edited to add...also, some consistency would be nice. Hard to take the defense bar seriously when they whine about alleged prosecutorial misconduct when there are plenty of shady dealings on their side of the aisle that are defended under the color of "zealous advocacy." ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Dec 2, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Like the lives of their clients' victims? No, considerably more comprehensively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, considerably more comprehensively. please elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:please elaborate. An offender can only kill or rape or steal from somebody, they can't put them and their kids in the system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:An offender can only kill or rape or steal from somebody, they can't put them and their kids in the system. so...putting someone in jail for rape > than rape in the spectrum of offenses against the person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so...putting someone in jail for rape > than rape in the spectrum of offenses against the person. Well no, but it is jail. Until jail is rehabilitation it will continue to destroy families in a much more comprehensive way than the offense itself will.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Since today is obviously the day I catch up on reading articles, here's a great piece on the criminal justice system from the New York Reviee of Books, centering around three books (the first of which, Just Mercy, is supposed to be great from what I've heard).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
It's interesting to watch you talk poo poo about Public Defenders as if they're some great antagonist, instead of the legal equivalent of the last kid picked for kickball. "Zealous Advocacy" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
how would you rehabilitate these guys? Serious question. http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20130907/steven-hayes-from-death-row-i-just-snapped-at-scene-of-cheshire-home-invasion As for PDs, no. I actually don't talk poo poo about "PDs" just the ones that feel compelled to pen pieces of poo poo. I actually like most of the PDs here. And to call them "last picked at kickball" is really inaccurate. we have some very good PDs here who I'd consider much better than a lot of the private defense bar. Some dickheads as well, but in our district, I respect almost all of them. Also...LOL at this thread unironically claiming that prison is more destructive than rape. It's about ethics in legal reform!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's interesting to watch you talk poo poo about Public Defenders as if they're some great antagonist, instead of the legal equivalent of the last kid picked for kickball. They're really more like the kid who is taking eight AP classes and is on the varsity football, baseball, basketball and swimming teams. They're not BAD they're just overworked to hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:They're really more like the kid who is taking eight AP classes and is on the varsity football, baseball, basketball and swimming teams. They're not BAD they're just overworked to hell. This. I don't know where the "public defenders are lovely lawyers" meme comes from. There are a few crappy ones, sure. just like there are a few crappy prosecutors. Usually old hold overs from before the legal market went to poo poo. But most of the PDs I've worked with are way better than most of the private attorneys. with the job market as lovely as it is for all lawyers, to get picked up for stable state employment with bennies and paid vacation, you can't be a turd on either side of the aisle. at least not here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This. I don't know where the "public defenders are lovely lawyers" meme comes from. There are a few crappy ones, sure. just like there are a few crappy prosecutors. Usually old hold overs from before the legal market went to poo poo. But most of the PDs I've worked with are way better than most of the private attorneys. with the job market as lovely as it is for all lawyers, to get picked up for stable state employment with bennies and paid vacation, you can't be a turd on either side of the aisle. at least not here. Because they often get outcomes that are perceived from the outside as suboptimal either through plea deals or because there are actually only 24 hours in a day. That's basically where it comes from.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Because they often get outcomes that are perceived from the outside as suboptimal either through plea deals or because there are actually only 24 hours in a day. That's basically where it comes from. or because...there's only so much they can do when their client is actually guilty as gently caress...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:or because...there's only so much they can do when their client is actually guilty as gently caress... There are no bad facts, only bad lawyers. - A proverb that apparenty people have taken to heart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:or because...there's only so much they can do when their client is actually guilty as gently caress... Too bad they don't suffer from affluenza
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:or because...there's only so much they can do when their client is actually guilty as gently caress... Be honest how many people have you helped send to prison for weed. I don't care that it's "not a priority" for you I just want you to admit you ruin lives for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:There are no bad facts, only bad lawyers. - A proverb that apparenty people have taken to heart. heh...best closing argument I ever gave...which the judge is still talking about 4 years later as "the best fraud prosecution he's ever seen" we lost. Full acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Be honest how many people have you helped send to prison for weed. I don't care that it's "not a priority" for you I just want you to admit you ruin lives for no reason. People ruin their own lives, like I'd get your argument if it was actually an addictive substance, but if you want to risk loving up your life just to get high you have no one to blame but yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People ruin their own lives, like I'd get your argument if it was actually an addictive substance, but if you want to risk loving up your life just to get high you have no one to blame but yourself. Maybe people's lives are so lovely that they don't care about ruining them and making them worse can't really be helping society? But yeah, bootstraps and everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Be honest how many people have you helped send to prison for weed. I don't care that it's "not a priority" for you I just want you to admit you ruin lives for no reason. Honest Answer: none. Here's the rundown of my cases this year: 1. DUI 2. Rape of a minor 3. Stabbing 4. Serial Home Invasion Rape 5. Rape of a Minor 6. Murder 7. Murder 8. Armed Robbery 9. Conspiracy/Murder 10. Murder 11. Murder 12. Armed Robbery 13. Murder 14. Operating a Drug Factory/Conspiracy 15. armed Robbery 16. Armed Robbery 17. Felony Murder 18. Attempted Murder/Kidnapping. I'm sure I'm forgetting at least one or 2 murders. So which of these lives have I ruined? PS...you seem to consistently want to overlook the many times I've said I don't think simple possession warrants jail time, and the many times I've said that in our jurisdiction a first time simple possession will get you a diversionary program and accelerated rehabilitation. (fancy way of saying no jail.) Edited to add: Once upon a time, as an INTERN I handed a few weed cases. They all got a diversionary program.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People ruin their own lives, like I'd get your argument if it was actually an addictive substance, but if you want to risk loving up your life just to get high you have no one to blame but yourself. Well, the stats on marijuana arrests versus usage suggest that different populations bear a different burden when it comes to getting high, so this doesn't work as an ethical principle unless you want to codify "twice as good for half as far" as something other than an unfortunate reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Maybe people's lives are so lovely that they don't care about ruining them and making them worse can't really be helping society? So if your life is lovely enough crime is just carte blanc not your fault? How far down the rabbit hole does this go?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well, the stats on marijuana arrests versus usage suggest that different populations bear a different burden when it comes to getting high, so this doesn't work as an ethical principle unless you want to codify "twice as good for half as far" as something other than an unfortunate reality. I agree with you enforcement has been unequal and lovely, thats a seperate issue that needs addressing though as it pervades most aspects of the justice system not just drug laws. I take issue with the "its totally wrong to punish me for breaking a law that I knew about and willingly flaunted" attitude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So if your life is lovely enough crime is just carte blanc not your fault? How far down the rabbit hole does this go? Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Throw in everything from ActusRhesus's case list. I certainly wasn't talking about people getting high in ways that don't hurt anyone else. Crime is crime, after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:PS...you seem to consistently want to overlook the many times I've said I don't think simple possession warrants jail time, and the many times I've said that in our jurisdiction a first time simple possession will get you a diversionary program and accelerated rehabilitation. (fancy way of saying no jail.) How about the second or third time? And I'm not overlooking what you said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Well, the stats on marijuana arrests versus usage suggest that different populations bear a different burden when it comes to getting high, so this doesn't work as an ethical principle unless you want to codify "twice as good for half as far" as something other than an unfortunate reality. In principle I agree with you that simple possession of *any* drug should be a big "whatever" (and it's interesting that Sedan Chair keeps beating the war drum of weed, but is silent on the issue of crack...) In practice, a lot of what get reported as arrests for possession are just place holders while more substantive charges can be built. A lot of possession convictions are the result of a skillful plea negotiation, often done by a "lovely PD." So in a vacuum, guy gets stopped for a pocket full of pot, who cares. Guy who matches the description of a rapist who is stopped with pot and that arrest allows the police to take his prints...which match rape scene? Yeah, that I'm not so bothered by. The problem with statistics in the abstract is they tend not to show the whole context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I agree with you enforcement has been unequal and lovely, thats a seperate issue that needs addressing though as it pervades most aspects of the justice system not just drug laws. What attitude are you talking about? I'm saying that it doesn't help us to punish people who choose to get high. I don't get high. Also I've lost family members to addiction and you sound like a heartless rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:How about the second or third time? And I'm not overlooking what you said. so your issue seems to be with the laws themselves. I don't see how one can argue that "prosecutors" ruin lives when all they are doing is enforcing the law as written. Write your legislature if you don't think weed should be illegal. I really don't care if it is or isn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:In principle I agree with you that simple possession of *any* drug should be a big "whatever" (and it's interesting that Sedan Chair keeps beating the war drum of weed, but is silent on the issue of crack...) That seems to me like a backstop to work around the constitutional rights that a defendant has regarding charge and release with regard to another crime and, if anything, that's almost more troubling than overzealous enforcement of laws on the books with no ulterior motive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:so your issue seems to be with the laws themselves. It would seem, given recent events, that prosecutors get some leeway into how they prosecute crimes. Was that just a fluke? Also your scenario assumes the system works perfectly, but in reality we get cops in Chicago electrocuting people they pick up until they confess to murders they didn't commit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:In principle I agree with you that simple possession of *any* drug should be a big "whatever" (and it's interesting that Sedan Chair keeps beating the war drum of weed, but is silent on the issue of crack...) Interesting that you bring up crack, not just all cocaine. Is crack particularly bad or something? Why is that? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:What attitude are you talking about? I'm saying that it doesn't help us to punish people who choose to get high. I don't get high. I already said he would have a point if he were talking about addictive substances, because in many cases its like criminalizing a disease. Treatment programs need to be prioritized for actual addiction issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That seems to me like a backstop to work around the constitutional rights that a defendant has regarding charge and release with regard to another crime and, if anything, that's almost more troubling than overzealous enforcement of laws on the books with no ulterior motive. not sure how it's a work around. they had authority to make the arrest. they had authority to take prints. they now have authority to use prints for other issues. in that case, they just lucked out. Not much different than "cop watches controlled buy. cop has patrol unit follow suspect and wait for a moving violation to pull over suspect and get his ID. cop now knows name of suspect."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Slavery used to be legal - can you tell me if those who followed the law and returned escaped slaves ruined lives?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
CheesyDog posted:Slavery used to be legal - can you tell me if those who followed the law and returned escaped slaves ruined lives? are you equating slavery to not being able to smoke weed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:are you equating slavery to not being able to smoke weed? clearly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:are you equating slavery to not being able to smoke weed? I'm not seeing an answer
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I agree with you enforcement has been unequal and lovely, thats a seperate issue that needs addressing though as it pervades most aspects of the justice system not just drug laws. Well this is the thing - the people who are arrested and prosecuted are flouting the law to the same extent and with the same knowledge as their peers who are not arrested or prosecuted or are just told "put it out"/"throw it away"/whatever (I am obviously a huge square in this department). If both groups are at fault for the consequences they experience, it stands to reason that they are fully blameworthy in spite of the difference of their consequences. If the former group bears responsibility for the consequences of being arrested and prosecuted - the life-ruining aspect - they are then blameworthy because of the aspect that results in that consequence. I'm out of practice on proofs so maybe that doesn't line up, but basically if enforcement is unequal you can't really hold the prosecuted fully to blame because there's a population doing the same drat thing but not getting nailed for it because, well ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Crack!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 07:35 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:I already said he would have a point if he were talking about addictive substances, because in many cases its like criminalizing a disease. Treatment programs need to be prioritized for actual addiction issues. How is people people in jail for smoking weed helping society?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:31
|
|