|
Everyone should read this book for the history of western criminal punishment. https://books.google.com/books/about/Eye_for_an_Eye.html?id=_RMiOXoLnncC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button Jail is fine punishment. Jail for racist or poverty reasons is crap. The major systemic problem is largely the corporate fiction that allows white collar (“white”) criminals to conduct massive crime and fraud without the threat of punishment. This is not an accident as it reinforces the primary goal of English common law, property protection. Once society espoused legal equality and the body politic grew to include women and minorities, the law created a fiction to keep white males from suffering consequences for their actions. HTH.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
I’ll check it out. Question: do you think more (and more aggressive) prosecution of white collar crimes and actual incarceration would help? I can get behind that. Jeff Skilling was way worse for society than some dude selling ounces of weed. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 02:26
|
|
|
White collar criminals generally have a lot longer to plan and execute their crimes, and they usually require more work than following the law because of the attempts made at hiding behavior. In my personal opinion, criminals who commit "money" crimes are more culpable and worse than a lot of other "emotional" crimes. General deterrence probably actually works with white collar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
Agreed. While we are recommending books, snakes in suits is a good read. Deals with psychopathic behaviors in the corporate world. Easy read too. Got through it on a plane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
I'll recommend Why They Do It, which is an excellent book about white collar crime. It asks the important question of why someone making twent million a year with a corporate credit card would steal a paltry million or two and risk going to jail for a decade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 04:26
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Agreed. I have had it with these motherfucking Snakes in Suits on this motherfucking plane!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 05:10
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Retribution is less obviously necessary (or moral) but some people obviously need it and I’ve never been in the shoes of a victimized person or family so I can’t judge. However I don’t think it’s the government’s job to satisfy some people’s urge to see blood Hammurabi style. Look, if the government's going to kill your son if you build a lovely house, you're going to be drat sure to not cut any corners on construction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Depends on how much you like your son.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 12:05
|
|
|
What if your son is also a carpenter, but a really lovely one that actually just stands around talking all day and curing people of illnesses and is also Jesus? Because they can kill him, but it won't take so you're really free to neglect your rear end off and he wasn't doing much good for the business anyway. Basically the worst part is that the Holy Spirit is gonna go on nagging about it for weeks on end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 12:23
|
|
|
The best part will be not having to deal with the brat screaming “you’re not my real dad!” All the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 13:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Just specific deterrence. Ie if I remove you from society, you can’t do this any more. You’re thinking of incapacitation.  I’d say specific deterrence works on (some) drunk drivers, which is probably where the justice system saves the most lives anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 16:59
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:You’re thinking of incapacitation. Our law school taught it as specific deterrence. *shrug*
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
Lol I’m reviewing  ‘s medical records
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 18:42
|
|
|
Sat in on some hearings for the sandy hook parents v Alex Jones lawsuit today. Jones is a douche. Infowarz sucks rear end. But when plaintiff’s lawyer opened her argument by naming every single dead child of the suing parties I kinda wanted to puke. Save it for the jury, lady.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Take it to Gab.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Gab?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Gab? it's twitter for people who think ordinary twitter doesn't have quite enough racists or nazis
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
It's alt-right Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:It's alt-right Twitter. you're thinking of regular twitter gab is alt-reich twitter
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
I can find the issues in the case interesting and still think the defendant is a dickwad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Lol I’m reviewing Where's this from?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
I could tell you but that would violate HIPAA so then I'd have to kill you
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I could tell you but that would violate HIPAA so then I'd have to kill you Uh, I think you've got that reversed
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Take it to Gab. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Sat in on some hearings for the sandy hook parents v Alex Jones lawsuit today. Jones is a douche. Infowarz sucks rear end. But when plaintiff’s lawyer opened her argument by naming every single dead child of the suing parties I kinda wanted to puke. Save it for the jury, lady. This kind of thing is most frustrating because it doesn’t work 90% of the time. But every now and then you get a judge who’ll let you get away with some bizarre crap and maybe that’s the bizarre crap the judge wants?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
The judge in this case wasn’t really phased by it one way or another. I just felt watching it like “we’re all adults here. We all know this was an unspeakable tragedy and the defendant is a complete shitbag. So can we get to the discovery questions?” But I was just there out of curiosity and Bc one of my pals was arguing the motion. Lunch to follow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:24
|
|
|
Might as well ask the pal why they think it happened, then? Perhaps P's attorney was affected by the case, or it was something the clients expected?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
I would guess it was pandering to their clients.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The judge in this case wasn’t really phased [sic] by it one way or another. Let me guess... You're going to start all that 'appointed judges' crazytalk now, aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
Clients weren’t present. If they had been that would have made total sense. No media either. Just a judge and a roomful of unrelated lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
nm posted:I would guess it was pandering to their clients. This was my guess, 100%
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
Lawyers? Grandstanding? Well I never
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:36
|
|
|
Even when the client isn’t there? We have a private defense attorney we get along with who we know will put on the dog and pony show and bang the table when his client is around. But when it’s just us he chills out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Even when the client isn’t there? It's not a lie...if you believe it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:40
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Might as well ask the pal why they think it happened, then? Perhaps P's attorney was affected by the case, or it was something the clients expected? Judges aren't robots, appealing to their emotions can be a winning tactic. Especially when they're elected. We had a similar stunt pulled on us when plaintiff's counsel invited (non-party) mass shooting survivors to give statements in a hearing regarding public records related to the mass shooting. After having his heart-strings yanked for a while, the judge gave plaintiff unconstitutional relief in an order which was subsequently vacated by the state supreme court. Unamuno fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Clients weren’t present. If they had been that would have made total sense. No media either. Just a judge and a roomful of unrelated lawyers. Lawyers who do that poo poo with no client to impress are hilarious to me. What must it be like to actually care about your job i wonder
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 02:08
|
|
|
Unamuno posted:Judges aren't robots, appealing to their emotions can be a winning tactic. Especially when they're elected. Also TBH it might just have been a “gently caress you for defending these shitbags” at Jones’ counsel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Even when the client isn’t there? Yeah, the majority of the time the dog and pony show only comes out when the client pulls the "Why aren't you fighting for me?" stuff and you smell the potential bar complaint just beyond the horizon. Of course that guy gets paid explicitly to do the dog and pony show.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Round 2, Part 1 of everyone's favourite fictional-lawyer-rating tournament: https://www.agpllp.ca/all-time-best-fictional-lawyer-round-2-part-1/
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:46 |
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Lawyers who do that poo poo with no client to impress are hilarious to me. What must it be like to actually care about your job i wonder It doesn't mean you care about your job, it means you suck at it and want a shortcut to better results.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 06:30
|
|