|
Dead Reckoning posted:But PDs and ER docs sign up knowing that they are going to be called upon to provide treatment to horrible dirtbags. You're saying it's not OK for a doctor to agree to be Weinstein's personal physician because he's a monster, but if he has a heart attack and gets brought into the ED, it's not just acceptable but morally virtuous for a doctor there to take heroic measures to save his life, even if that doctor knows full well who Harvey Weinstein is? Why does stepping the moral choice back a remove and not knowing which particular dirtbag's life you will save somehow change the calculus?
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
twodot posted:ER doctors and public defenders both provide a vital public service that would be severely and fundamentally compromised if they discriminated between clients. Private lawyers are defined by their ability to discriminate between clients and I expect them to use that discretion wisely and well. If the outcome is what is important, your argument makes no sense. If the intent of the lawyers is important, then there is no reason why a lawyer in private practice can't pick and choose what cases are most compatible with their practice and caseload in the service of the larger idea that everyone deserves legal representation. Do you think physicians should refuse to serve clients at their practice that the public finds objectionable? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:ER doctors and public defenders both provide a vital public service that would be severely and fundamentally compromised if they discriminated between clients. Private lawyers are defined by their ability to discriminate between clients and I expect them to use that discretion wisely and well. Yeah they are discerning about which clients will make them the most money / exposure / improve their brand.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It also said that the inadequacy of defense counsel was a cause I'll post this again, since the point I tried to get across unsuccessfully was that a single-state, 1978 study of one kind of case (burglary) is less representative than a nation-wide study of every kind of case. blarzgh posted:https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=772
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'll post this again, since the point I tried to get across unsuccessfully was that a single-state, 1978 study of one kind of case (burglary) is less representative than a nation-wide study of every kind of case. VitalSigns posted:in which case banning private lawyers would be an unambiguous gain for society through efficiency savings if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But PDs and ER docs sign up knowing that they are going to be called upon to provide aid to horrible dirtbags. You're saying it's not OK for a doctor to agree to be Weinstein's personal physician because he's a monster, but if he has a heart attack and gets brought into the ED, it's not just acceptable but morally virtuous for a doctor there to take heroic measures to save his life, even if that doctor knows full well who Harvey Weinstein is? Why does stepping the moral choice back a remove and not knowing which particular dirtbag's life you will save somehow change the calculus? Are you seriously struggling with the moral calculus that something you do when you have the discretion to not do it, and something you do when you have no choice are different situations? I blame the people who wrote the laws to carry out the war on drugs more than I blame the people who carry out the law because they'll be unemployed and starving if they don't. Does this baffle you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:ER doctors and public defenders both provide a vital public service that would be severely and fundamentally compromised if they discriminated between clients. Private attorneys provide the exact same vital public service to people who don't qualify for a public defender. Just to get myself clear on what you actually believe: 1. If you, personally, are super sure someone is guilty, then you think every private attorney is morally compelled to decline to represent them? 2. Because every private attorney in your world now refuses to represent them, you believe that states should foot the bill for the expense of every one of these people who are "super guilty" in your estimation, and force a public defender to perform the "immoral task" of representing these people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'll post this again, since the point I tried to get across unsuccessfully was that a single-state, 1978 study of one kind of case (burglary) is less representative than a nation-wide study of every kind of case. ok fine you've convinced me, ban private defense counsel then and give everyone a PD because anything else is a scam and should be illegal. You win!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This is obviously not true because private lawyers are entitled to turn down clients. Not necessarily in criminal matters. If someone pressed for a particular attorney and he did not have good cause to deny representation, they may be compelled by the court to do so. VitalSigns posted:Yeah that's bad. Just because he isn't eligible for PD doesn't mean he'd have to go pro se. If every private defense attorney turned him down, the court would ask him who he wanted, and then assign the case to that attorney. In order for the attorney to decline representation at that point, they'd have to demonstrate good cause and no prejudice to Weinstein or that the attorney's advice was being used for unlawful acts. Weinstein would have to pay the attorney his regular rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you seriously struggling with the moral calculus that something you do when you have the discretion to not do it, and something you do when you have no choice are different situations? VitalSigns posted:I blame the people who wrote the laws to carry out the war on drugs more than I blame the people who carry out the law because they'll be unemployed and starving if they don't. Does this baffle you. VitalSigns posted:ok fine you've convinced me, ban private defense counsel then and give everyone a PD because anything else is a scam and should be illegal. You win! Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:1. If you, personally, are super sure someone is guilty, then you think every private attorney is morally compelled to decline to represent them? I think private attorneys shouldn't be profiting off a parallel justice system just for the rich where you pay money to escape justice. I recognize you think this doesn't exist and it's just a coincidence that income and outcome are correlated. If I were convinced of that then I wouldn't think Sullivan is a scumbag (for this, obviously he still is for other reasons like claiming rape is made up) blarzgh posted:2. Because every private attorney in your world now refuses to represent them, you believe that states should foot the bill for the expense of every one of these people who are "super guilty" in your estimation, and force a public defender to perform the "immoral task" of representing these people? No I think the rich should foot the bill for everyone including them getting a PD through a system of progressive taxation. But yes nominally it will be the state "footing the bill" I suppose since they're signing the checks but I want them to get the money from the place they normally get the money: taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If the outcome is what is important, your argument makes no sense. If the intent of the lawyers is important, then there is no reason why a lawyer in private practice can't pick and choose what cases are most compatible with their practice and caseload in the service of the larger idea that everyone deserves legal representation. quote:Do you think physicians should refuse to serve clients at their practice that the public finds objectionable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:VitalSigns arguing for a degree of moral absolution for police officers and prison guards for the policies they carry out, because a man's gotta eat, and for a legal system that prohibits the activities of the ACLU, FIRE and The Innocence Project. Truly a red-letter day for the forums. Have you though through this at all and tried to reconcile it with your other professed beliefs? Guillotine for the politicans, firing squad for the police?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:VitalSigns arguing for a degree of moral absolution for police officers and prison guards for the policies they carry out, because a man's gotta eat, and for a legal system that prohibits the activities of the ACLU, FIRE and The Innocence Project. Truly a red-letter day for the forums. Have you though through this at all and tried to reconcile it with your other professed beliefs? I don't think those activities should be illegal, I think they should be greatly expanded with adequate funding so every defendant gets the benefit of the investigations those organizations do. I feel like I've said that before but maybe not so I'll say it now. Or maybe I did say it and you're resorting to illogical gotchas because your position is a shambles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think those activities should be illegal, I think they should be greatly expanded with adequate funding so every defendant gets the benefit of the investigations those organizations do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:ok fine you've convinced me, ban private defense counsel then and give everyone a PD because anything else is a scam and should be illegal. You win! The rule is that everyone is entitled to an attorney. The rule is old-school, and designed as a check against the State. People can represent themselves if they want, or they can hire an attorney. However, it is so important that people have an attorney, as a check against the power of the State, that the State is required to provide them one if they can't afford it. Broadly, you have to remember that the Lawyer's duty is not only to the client, to give them the best possible representation, but the lawyer's duty is also to the public at large, to make the State do its job before taking away the freedom of its citizens. Its not up to the lawyer (edit: and not the public at large, either) to decide "how much" representation people need - it is up to defense attorneys to keep the all-powerful government in check. If every lawyer just rolled over whenever they were pretty sure their client was guilty, (or simply started deciding whether or not to represent detestable people) then the front line against an authoritarian government who prosecutes anyone and everyone at will, collapses. Its not the defense lawyer's job to decide who is innocent and who is guilty and help the prosecution when they see fit. Its the defense lawyer's job to be a check on the powers of the executive. Thats why constitutional violations are punished by suppressing evidence obtained through those violations. If there were no defense lawyers to punish those violations (by preventing convictions obtained through those violations) then the protections themselves would become meaningless. twodot posted:Private lawyers are not acting in service of that idea. That is a thing you made up. Public defenders are the ones dedicated to making sure everyone gets legal representation. Private lawyers are offering a legal service which can be obtained from a variety of places in exchange for money. Ok, this dude is literally advocating for doctors to start practicing execution by inaction on people the Doctor is "super sure" are bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Private attorneys provide the exact same vital public service to people who don't qualify for a public defender. quote:2. Because every private attorney in your world now refuses to represent them, you believe that states should foot the bill for the expense of every one of these people who are "super guilty" in your estimation, and force a public defender to perform the "immoral task" of representing these people?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:If they know their client is a horrible monster they should refuse non-emergency service. Like are you telling me that if you are a physician and Weinstein walks into your door, you're going to think "Here's a person I want to live a long healthy and strong life"? If nothing else it seems like there is a conflict of interests you couldn't avoid. There is literally no way you'd agree to this sort of absolute moral authority for any other public servant, like, I don't know, a police officer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:No I think people are specifically morally compelled to decline to represent Weinstein. Me: Why? You: Because he definitely did the things he's accused of. Me: Then blarzgh posted:1. If you, personally, are super sure someone is guilty, then you think every private attorney is morally compelled to decline to represent them? You: No. Me: Why? You: Beca
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Apparently the lawyers are morally absolved if we go through the kabuki of making every single eligible lawyer denounce Weinstein and then force one to take his case.twodot posted:If they know their client is a horrible monster they should refuse non-emergency service. Like are you telling me that if you are a physician and Weinstein walks into your door, you're going to think "Here's a person I want to live a long healthy and strong life"? If nothing else it seems like there is a conflict of interests you couldn't avoid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:There is literally no way you'd agree to this sort of absolute moral authority for any other public servant, like, I don't know, a police officer. blarzgh posted:Me: Why? edit: Dead Reckoning posted:Aside from the super hosed up idea that medical professionals should withhold care from people they don't like unless they're literally and imminently dying in front of them, what happens when all non-emergency clinics south of the Mason-Dixon start refusing service to people they find morally objectionable? twodot fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ideally we would find a way for rich people to pay for it. But if a rich horrible monster shows up to court and says "I'm such a horrible monster no lawyer will take my money" obviously we got to force some lawyer to defend them. How we pay for that is of no great concern to me. And who gets to sit on this panel of "horrible monster adjudications"? Just you? or do you have some twitter followers who will do it as well? Maybe about 12 of yall could get together first before deciding, and, I don't know, look at the evidence or something together and listen to the people involved tell their stories? You'd want to put them under oath so that they don't lie, of course. And you'd want some rules about what evidence you could look at, so your decisions aren't colored by irrelevant, or unfairly prejudicial facts. Maybe you could get a 13th person to, oh, I don't know, "judge" the proceedings? To make sure the rules are followed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In what way do you think you can reconcile the continued activities of those organizations with a prohibition on the private defense bar? Because I don't believe it should be prohibited, I believe that the public defense should be so well-funded that hiring private lawyers would be redundant and no one would bother. I have said that many times. In an expanded public system the people doing private defense work now, including people working for the ACLU, would just get hired by the government with its huge demand for lawyers. Whether they would work directly for the government or whether they'd work for their existing firms/organizations which the government would hire is an implementation question and I'm willing to entertain arguments either way. I have also said that if blzargh's argument is true, and private lawyers are universally inferior to private lawyers no matter how expensive the lawyers and how much investigation they do, then the logical conclusion is that they are a fraud and should be illegal to protect the public. So either way blzargh is (or logically should be) agreeing with me that PD's for everyone is the way to go. I do not believe blzargh's argument is true, so therefore I do not accept the conclusions that logically follow from that. Does that clear things up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
Post hoc rationalization sure is a powerful thing ain't it You can't simultaneously say "everyone deserves a lawyer" and also "except that dude". Well I mean you *can* but it's not logically consistent. If the job would be moral for an assigned pd it's also moral for a private unassigned pd. That's like claiming it's immoral to be paid well to clean toilets but moral if you're assigned to clean toilets as an unpaid intern. Same job same toilet either way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:Private lawyers are not public servants. NeoBulletDodge.gif
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If the job would be moral for an assigned pd it's also moral for a private unassigned pd. That's like claiming it's immoral to be paid well to clean toilets but moral if you're assigned to clean toilets as an unpaid intern. Same job same toilet either way. This persistent pretense of equivalence between a duty of service as part of a truly universal system as a necessary function of maintaining that universal system, vs picking and choosing as to sustain a deeply unequal system, is really gross and intellectually dishonest. Or maybe just dumb I dunno. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And who gets to sit on this panel of "horrible monster adjudications"? Just you? or do you have some twitter followers who will do it as well? Maybe about 12 of yall could get together first before deciding, and, I don't know, look at the evidence or something together and listen to the people involved tell their stories? You'd want to put them under oath so that they don't lie, of course. And you'd want some rules about what evidence you could look at, so your decisions aren't colored by irrelevant, or unfairly prejudicial facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This persistent pretense that a duty of service as part of a truly universal system as a necessary function of maintaining that universal system, vs picking and choosing as to sustain a deeply unequal system, is really gross and intellectually dishonest. Or maybe just dumb I dunno. Its the latter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The rule is that everyone is entitled to an attorney. The rule is old-school, and designed as a check against the State. People can represent themselves if they want, or they can hire an attorney. Yeah but your argument is that these lawyers aren't doing as good a job as lawyers appointed by the state. Since the basic assumption of our adversarial justice system is that we get the most just outcomes when the best possible defense goes up against the best possible prosecution, then we could create a more just system by giving everyone a lawyer appointed by the state. Or at least to give them that option. "Ban private defense" is the logical conclusion of your argument, that private defense is never better than a PD. Although I suspect you don't really believe that since now you're arguing we need private defense counsels to keep from being railroaded by the unjust legal system (well I guess to keep the rich from being railroaded, obviously the poor are hosed under your model)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This persistent pretense that a duty of service as part of a truly universal system as a necessary function of maintaining that universal system, vs picking and choosing as to sustain a deeply unequal system, is really gross and intellectually dishonest. Or maybe just dumb I dunno. Look, all defense attorneys are participating in the legal system. Some of them are just paid more. They're all both helping to "sustain" it -- in the sense that each of us is "sustaining" capitalism by purchasing things -- and all equally working to protect against the worst excesses of it (by defending clients). They all made the same choice to become criminal defense attorneys. They all made the same choice to defend horrible people (if you're a public defender, you knew going in that most of your clients would be horrible people, unless you got lucky and specialize in juvenile or mentally ill defendants or something). What's really consistent here is that the people objecting to the concept of private defense attorneys don't seem to really have that much grasp of the actual legal system as it actually operates. VitalSigns posted:
 this seems like a technically valid point but one that's substantively inane. Oh no the huge social ill of an attorney scamming wealthy criminal assholes by overcharging them for a market equivalent service! Hell, the best private defense attorneys I've ever talked to were all very upfront with their clients that they probably couldn't help them that much, all they could do was slightly shift the odds for them at best. I mean, sure, if you want to nationalize and systematize and unify the whole criminal defense bar . . . ok I guess, sure, but there are so many more important parts of the problem that that seems like an incredibly low priority. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:There is literally no way you'd agree to this sort of absolute moral authority for any other public servant, like, I don't know, a police officer. Police officers already have that authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Look, all defense attorneys are participating in the legal system. Some of them are just paid more. They're all both helping to "sustain" it -- in the sense that each of us is "sustaining" capitalism by purchasing things -- and all equally working to protect against the worst excesses of it (by defending clients). They all made the same choice to become criminal defense attorneys. They all made the same choice to defend horrible people (if you're a public defender, you knew going in that most of your clients would be horrible people, unless you got lucky and specialize in juvenile or mentally ill defendants or something). Just maybe some of those people are more responsible than others? Again stop pretending there is equivalence between literally every element of the system. There isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Post hoc rationalization sure is a powerful thing ain't it I don't think it's the same job though, so this reasoning doesn't apply. I think defending a rich dude as part of a universal public service that everyone gets is different from defending a rich dude as part of a special separate justice-for-sale system where the rich get special treatment. Since these are different jobs, ta-da I can have different opinions about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Just maybe some of those people are more responsible than others? There's equivalence between private and public criminal defense attorneys for the most part, though. Like, as was pointed out above, they're usually even the same people just a decade or two older. You PD for a while then you go private. Nothing wrong with being on either side of that timeline. AS was said above, people seem to be maintaining that there has to be some sort of kabuki ritual communal martyrdom process or some poo poo, it's ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:There is literally no way you'd agree to this sort of absolute moral authority for any other public servant, like, I don't know, a police officer. What non-emergency police services are relevant here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but your argument is that twodot posted:The only person who gets to sit on the panel of "Who does twodot think is a horrible monster" is me, and I get to make the rules. You still refuse to anchor yourself to a position (which I understand because you understand that you just super hate Harvey Weinstein, and were willing to make a bold proclamation about our entire justice system, but now refuse to back down about it and admit that you just super hate Harvey Weinstein) so I'm asking you directly: 1. If you, personally, are super sure someone is guilty, then do you think every private attorney is morally compelled to decline to represent them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Look, all defense attorneys are participating in the legal system. Some of them are just paid more. They're all both helping to "sustain" it -- in the sense that each of us is "sustaining" capitalism by purchasing things -- and all equally working to protect against the worst excesses of it (by defending clients). They all made the same choice to become criminal defense attorneys. They all made the same choice to defend horrible people (if you're a public defender, you knew going in that most of your clients would be horrible people, unless you got lucky and specialize in juvenile or mentally ill defendants or something). 1) The sort that can't discriminate between clients 2) The sort that can discriminate between clients We absolutely need the first sort because otherwise there's a lot of people no lawyer would defend, so I propose we give them a break. I'm asking that the sort the can discriminate between clients discriminate wisely and well and be held responsible for their choices. edit: blarzgh posted:1. If you, personally, are super sure someone is guilty, then do you think every private attorney is morally compelled to decline to represent them? twodot fucked around with this message at 23:15 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:There's equivalence between private and public criminal defense attorneys for the most part, though. Like, as was pointed out above, they're usually even the same people just a decade or two older. You PD for a while then you go private. Nothing wrong with being on either side of that timeline. No there absolutely is something wrong with being on the side of it that exists to protect the extremely bad power structure. The same person might work as a shelf stacker or for the army, when they join the army they become a piece of poo poo HTH.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:Medical professionals withhold care from family members because of emotional factors, I don't see why doctors shouldn't have a similarly strong emotional reaction to literally enabling Weinstein. I don't know how your made up hypothetical plays out why don't you tell me? VitalSigns posted:Police officers already have that authority
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:20 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't think it's the same job though, so this reasoning doesn't apply. yeah, that's the thing though, you're just factually wrong about that. You can think the moon is green cheese, it factually isn't. Similarly, there's just not that much difference between a public criminal defense attorney and a private criminal defense attorney. They're basically the same folks, they're just paid by different people. Your first big factual error is the assumption that public criminal defense is a universal public service everyone gets; it isn't. Maybe it should be but it isn't currently. Your second is assuming that even nationalizing the public defense bar would mean that the rich no longer got special treatment. The rich get special treatment because of a lot of different systemic biases our society has in their favor, of which being able to afford a private attorney is an extremely small part. It doesn't take a private defense attorney to get a judge to listen to an "affluenza" argument, it just takes a lovely judge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:13
|
|