|
Dead Reckoning posted:Gay and trans people become unable to receive medical care outside of going to the emergency room or driving 100+ miles, for a start. edit: Like for the millionth time, "If you call lawyers dirtbags, other bad people, will do other bad things" is no real argument.
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
twodot posted:Well that sounds bad, I propose they should not do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:There are two sorts of defense attorneys: twodot posted:there's a lot of people no lawyer would defend This is another flawed assumption. Again, folks are showing they really don't grok the whole concept of being a criminal defense attorney at all (private or public). Criminal defense attorneys are gonna defend just about anybody. If they started discriminating between clients they'd not have any clients because virtually all criminal defense clients are absurdly horrible people, or at least people who have done horrible things. Private attorneys don't go around turning down messy unpleasant work because it's unpleasant. It's all unpleasant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It is the inevitable result of a system where medical doctors refuse care for patients based on their moral judgments about them. A slippery slope that leads right to where we are today Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is another flawed assumption. Again, folks are showing they really don't grok the whole concept of being a criminal defense attorney at all (private or public).
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:Of course not. First because there are a large list of crimes I don't even think should be crimes. Secondly because even if we all agree the crime is bad, there a large list of circumstances that someone could think is very good to champion in court. Probably other reasons, I haven't really thought this all the way out because I never said anything of the sort. okay, so are you saying that only if you are super sure that someone is super guilty of a crime that you actually think is bad, and there's no other circumstances that someone should champion in court, then in that case all private defense attorney should decline the represent them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean if you want to argue for the abolition of private criminal defense I will not fight you on it. It's a real good list on the last page of things to also work on while we do that. Thanks HA
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This is another flawed assumption. Again, folks are showing they really don't grok the whole concept of being a criminal defense attorney at all (private or public). This. Also there are ethical rules in places that do not allow attorneys to really turn people down people at will. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Real weird that there's all these lawyers desperate to argue why they aren't assholes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:okay, so are you saying that only if you are super sure that someone is super guilty of a crime that you actually think is bad, and there's no other circumstances that someone should champion in court, then in that case all private defense attorney should decline the represent them? edit: OwlFancier posted:Real weird that there's all these lawyers desperate to argue why they aren't assholes. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
twodot posted:No I am not saying that and have not said that. That is a short list of easy reasons it would be definitely ok to represent someone. There are presumably even more reasons it would definitely ok, and even more reasons where it would be ambiguous enough that I would argue no one should really care one way or the other. What I am saying and what I have said is there are specific individual instances where we can identify it's definitely not ok to publicly support monsters including choosing to be their personal private defense lawyer. okay, then why don't you elaborate and explain to me what those specific circumstances are where we, as society, get to the side that someone He's the kind of person that privates criminal defense attorneys to decline the represent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
I know it looks like I'm posting like I'm having a stroke, but bear with me because it's talk to text while I play with my kid
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:A slippery slope that leads right to where we are today Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:okay, then why don't you elaborate and explain to me what those specific circumstances are where we, as society, get to the side that someone He's the kind of person that privates criminal defense attorneys to decline the represent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
How about this: we can all say Weinstein gets no representation, but it's a non-precedential decision like bush v gore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:How about this: we can all say Weinstein gets no representation, but it's a non-precedential decision like bush v gore. I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't get representation. Just that it should be only by appointment. Mr. Nice! posted:This. Also there are ethical rules in places that do not allow attorneys to really turn people down people at will. As long as they have the money
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Real weird that there's all these lawyers desperate to argue why they aren't assholes. I'm not a private attorney. All the attorneys are arguing with you because they understand the system and you're making fundamental errors which show you don't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:Nah. This thread is about whether it is appropriate to judge lawyers for their clients, and I'm not going to bother to draft an ECMA specification on how to judge lawyers for their clients until there is agreement that we should. Criminal defense lawyers practically and ethically really don't have a choice in whether or not to represent a client. It would be nifty if that wasn't the world we lived in, but it is. It's either represent the clients that want you (as they're constitutionally entitled to) or don't be an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not a private attorney. All the attorneys are arguing with you because they understand the system and you're making fundamental errors which show you don't. He understands it. He's saying it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't get representation. Just that it should be only by appointment. As others have said though that's Kabuki. You can't shame people for doing a job when you admit *someone* needs to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
I mean the main contention I'm making is that the system is bad cos of the effects it has and none of the lawyers have actually managed or even attempted to dispute that they just prattle on about how hard done by they are. Which i mean is what I expect from a lawyer but y'know, still funny 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Criminal defense lawyers practically and ethically really don't have a choice in whether or not to represent a client. It would be nifty if that wasn't the world we lived in, but it is. It's either represent the clients that want you (as they're constitutionally entitled to) or don't be an attorney. edit: Hieronymous Alloy posted:As others have said though that's Kabuki. You can't shame people for doing a job when you admit *someone* needs to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean the main contention I'm making is that the system is bad cos of the effects it has and none of the lawyers have actually managed or even attempted to dispute that they just prattle on about how hard done by they are. The system is terrible and you want to make it worse, because you’re a chud or fascist making a threadbare egalitarian argument about the way the world should be, in order to dehumanize and attack people who actually live in it right now (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:Nah. This thread is about whether it is appropriate to judge lawyers for their clients, and I'm not going to bother to draft an ECMA specification on how to judge lawyers for their clients until there is agreement that we should. Everyone has already said that it's not appropriate to judge lawyers because of their clients. You're taking the position that it is, but refused to articulate under what circumstances it should be and why those circumstances justify your position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:
Until we have a new universal defense system in place, which isn't happening any time soon. . . Yeah, *someone* does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
twodot posted:Obviously I can only criticize choices to the extent that they are a choice. Is it your opinion Weinstein's lawyers had no choice but to accept him as a client? I'd have to look up his state ethics rules to find out exactly what his obligations are there, but as a practical matter, lawyers that turn down paying customers aren't lawyers for long. The vast majority of criminal defendants are there because they did something awful. The choice as a criminal defense attorney is represent almost any person that comes in or don't be a criminal defense attorney. There are good cause reasons to decline representation and are exceptions in the ethical rules. None of them are "because he's a monster" because that's true of a significant chunk of criminal defendants. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Everyone has already said that it's not appropriate to judge lawyers because of their clients. You're taking the position that it is, but refused to articulate under what circumstances it should be and why those circumstances justify your position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted: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. Hieronymous Alloy posted: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. No I have never said that, that is a strawman someone else made up. I know rich people can't say "I want to save money, gimme a free lawyer", what I said is that saying Sullivan is a scumbag does not deny Weinstein his right to counsel, even if every lawyer refused to take his money, he would be able to get one. Even if the State said no he would obviously prevail in sixth amendment claim
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Everyone has already said that it's not appropriate to judge lawyers because of their clients. You're taking the position that it is, but refused to articulate under what circumstances it should be and why those circumstances justify your position. Yup. A lot of folks itt made a decision and are post hoc rationalizating it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
Also I definitely not getting this concept that the government should force public defenders to do this quote unquote morally improper thing, because it is wrong to allow privately compensated attorneys to do the thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok for the purpose of this thread, it is my belief that exactly Weinstein should be shunned, and I'm not aware of any other people or circumstances that warrant it. Why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I am right, time spent on cases, the amount of research they can do, their connections, all make a difference. Money pays for more than just the name, that's why the rich are willing to pay No, you are wrong. I understand that you've got a position to take, and you've got an emotional need to take that position, but it's not supported by the facts
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Also I definitely not getting this concept that the government should force public defenders to do this quote unquote morally improper thing, because it is wrong to allow privately compensated attorneys to do the thing. blarzgh posted:Why?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:No, you are wrong. I understand that you've got a position to take, and you've got an emotional need to take that position, but it's not supported by the facts You don't think money spent on legal defense affects the outcome?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:Seeking out to help a horrible monster is bad. Defending a horrible monster because you are a member of a public service whose purpose is to ensure everyone has legal representation is good. So the government tells you to murder a kitten it's not morally bad, but if you just choose to for financial gain that it is? Are you really espousing the idea that you can convert something that's morally bad into something morally good by having the government tell you to do it? And at this point I understand you're refusing to commit yourself to a position with respect to Harvey Weinstein but you should appreciate that I'm a lot more stubborn than I really should be and I'm going to continue to try and get you to admit but the reason you think Harvey Weinstein should be shunned by criminal defense attorneys is because you personally think he's guilty of something you think is bad enough to warrant said shunning
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You don't think money spent on legal defense affects the outcome? I don't know where you came in this thread, but search my posts and it's one of the second or third things I posted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't know where you came in this thread, but search my posts and it's one of the second or third things I posted. I'm making sure I'm clear because it seems really counterintuitive given the general agreement from everyone, I thought, that public defenders need to be properly funded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I'm making sure I'm clear because it seems really counterintuitive given the general agreement from everyone, I thought, that public defenders need to be properly funded. Public defenders are underfunded for sure and should get more funding. They need to pay better to help keep good lawyers there. They are always going to be understaffed and overworked, though, because it's a hard loving job. But PD vs private attorney largely does not change the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Public defenders are underfunded for sure and should get more funding. They need to pay better to help keep good lawyers there. They are always going to be understaffed and overworked, though, because it's a hard loving job. I agree that's why I think it's a problem that lawyers can turn clients away for inability to pay
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 14:42 |
|
|
twodot posted:Ok for the purpose of this thread, it is my belief that exactly Weinstein should be shunned, and I'm not aware of any other people or circumstances that warrant it. Every accused rapist is accused of rape. What special thing did he do that doesn’t apply to anyone that would be in court at all?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:04
|
|
