|
blarzgh posted: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? quote: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? quote: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 edit: Owlofcreamcheese posted: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? Like is the argument actually that you think logically I should think more people should be shunned? If you want to argue that I guess I'll agree, I was being cautious out of deference. Please enumerate the list of people I should advocate for shunning. twodot fucked around with this message at 00:10 on Jun 14, 2019 |
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I agree that's why I think it's a problem that lawyers can turn clients away for inability to pay There's a system in place to provide representation for those that cannot afford an attorney. The PD system is generally pretty good, but underfunded and overworked. This is because it's a very difficult job to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:underfunded and overworked. This is because it's a very difficult job to do. Cause and effect reversed here. Draft all private defense attorneys. There's no ethical consumption of legal services under capitalism. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Cause and effect reversed here. Even if they had a smaller caseload, the job would still suck because you're still representing criminal defendants. The actual job isn't difficult. The subject matter is what makes it hard. More money would make it better and might make retention go up, but the job is still going to be miserable, difficult, and have pretty high turnover regardless of pay. I got you before your ninja edit, but in in some states they literally do randomly assign indigent clients to private criminal defense attorneys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There's no ethical consumption of legal services under capitalism. No argument here. Capitalism has horrible outcomes, but it's what we have at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Cause and effect reversed here. Draft all private defense attorneys. The funny thing is that’s basically what happens a lot of the time. Get yourself on the CJA list and watch all the judges in your district send a parade of terrible, terrible clients to your door. (Not literally of course, because almost all of them will be in jail, but you know what I mean).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted: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? twodot posted:In the context of criminal defense, yes. twodot posted:I think people generally should shun Weinstein because he did something bad enough to warrant it. Whether he's guilty of some criminal code is a lawyer thing I feel no need to engage with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:16
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Is your whole argument seriously going to boil down to, "I am allowed to have my opinions of people because they're just my opinions and I don't need to subject them to formal inquiry because they aren't public policy, but ideally everyone should share my opinions and they would have the same effect as public policy, but I still don't need to submit them to inquiry"? This is literally the basis of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:What makes criminal defense different from, say, gunning down civilians? quote:Is your whole argument seriously going to boil down to, "I am allowed to have my opinions of people because they're just my opinions and I don't need to subject them to formal inquiry because they aren't public policy, but ideally everyone should share my opinions and they would have the same effect as public policy, but I still don't need to submit them to inquiry"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:Criminal defense is generally good and gunning down civilians is generally bad. Our society has too little criminal defense and too much gunning down civilians. Lawyers by and large do not choose their clients. That's the fatal flaw in your statement. The clients pick the lawyer. Criminal defense attorneys cannot practically and in some cases ethically decline to represent someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Lawyers by and large do not choose their clients. That's the fatal flaw in your statement. The clients pick the lawyer. Criminal defense attorneys cannot practically and in some cases ethically decline to represent someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:Again, is it your belief that Weinstein's lawyers could not have refused Weinstein? Like if there's evidence for that, then I'm wrong (but I also think lawyers should get together and create a system where they have discretion) As I said before, I don't know in which state he was charged or what that state's ethical rules state. The model rules only allow you to turn down a client if you do not have the capability to defend them, do not have the competence to defend them, have a conflict of interest, or a few other caveats. None of them involve declining representation because the person has committed monstrous offenses. As a practical matter, private criminal defense attorneys that turn down work are not defense attorneys for long. If someone can afford to pay you, generally you have to take on the case. The only real discretion you have in the long run as a criminal defense attorney is to not be a criminal defense attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:As I said before, I don't know in which state he was charged or what that state's ethical rules state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
Am I correct in saying that your position is that we need a special set of rules for people who defend Harvey Weinstein, and only Harvey Weinstein, but don't care to explain why the logic that leads you to that conclusion only applies to Harvey Weinstein and no one else?OwlFancier posted:This is literally the basis of democracy. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"People make decisions based on uninformed snap judgements, gut feeling, and post hoc rationalization, rather than rigorous and falsifiable analysis subject to inquiry" isn't the basis for democracy, it's an argument against it. If we're doing the whole "this is how things are" dance..?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:I would say that murdering a kitten and the practice of criminal defense are pretty different things that we like shouldn't compare to each other. Is there disagreement there? Ok, this is fantastic. We've broken the issue down to it's root: you care more that this particular person be denied justice because of what he did than you care about what happens to the justice system if you got your way. In other words, you think attorneys who agree to represent someone who's obviously guilty of his crimes specifically are committing a moral wrong. Here is why you should feel differently: there are millions of people who's lives and freedoms depend on us not crafting exceptions and whittling away at the bulkhead of criminal justice on behalf of Harvey Weinstein. He's not worth it. He's garbage and he is not important enough for us to expose other people to the dangers of trending social thought and deprecated legal protections caused by our desire to punish him. We need to keep the wall between us and the criminal justice system as strong and fortified as possible, and he's a dumb piece of poo poo who's not worth poking holes in it for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
We need to keep the legal system exactly as it is or millions of people will suffer. Or.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
Weinstein was charged in New York, FWIW.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:48
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:We need to keep the legal system exactly as it is or millions of people will suffer. Re read the post you just criticized. We need to build a stronger wall between the people and the criminal justice system that's trying to incarcerate them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Re read the post you just criticized. We need to build a stronger wall between the people and the criminal justice system that's trying to incarcerate them. By maintaining the status quo. Because you're arguing against attacking its injustices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:By maintaining the status quo. Because you're arguing against attacking its injustices. Wrong and wrong. It must hurt to be you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
Mate you're literally whingeing about how it's terrible that rich rape boy's rich rape lawyers face any consequences. Even the mildest criticism from literally anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:Then stop bringing it up? Like "Weinstein's lawyers had no choice to criticize" would be a real argument, but only if you actually knew that to be true. I had made an assumption that the new york rules followed the model rules. I looked it up and they do. As a practical matter, as well, you don't really turn down cases in private criminal defense. The consultation is to set the price. The more heinous the charge, the higher the fee. Fees are typically flat rate unless someone can afford hourly. Then it's $400/hr around here at a minimum. The repugnance of an offense is not a valid reason, if pressed by the court, to decline representation. I'm stressing the pressed by the court, because that is the outcome if criminal attorneys actually had the practical ability to decline clients. If his lawyers had said "nah, you're the one rapist we won't represent" and every other private defense attorney in new york unanimously agreed, the court would ask weinstein who he wanted to be his attorney, and he'd get his selection provided he paid the attorney's fee. He is entitled to the attorney of his choice. This is the law of the united states. This is rarely litigated and actually pressed, because as a practical matter you can't turn down work because your client is a monster because pretty much all people coming through your door have done bad poo poo. Note the majority of your clients are not drug possession charges or even regular misdemeanors. Almost all of those get taken care of through some sort of deferment. The vast majority of people coming through the door at a private criminal defense firm are charged with violent misdemeanors or felonies. In many of those cases, the presumption of guilt is great. Prosecutors are usually pretty good about only bringing charges up that they actually believe they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Mate you're literally whingeing about how it's terrible that rich rape boy's rich rape lawyers face any consequences. Even the mildest criticism from literally anyone. A theatrical mischaracterization, but nonetheless the core of your point is correct. I do think it's a bad idea to criticize attorneys for the client they decide to represent against the government trying to incarcerate them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
And you're laughably trying to suggest that somehow this kind of criticism is equal among all possible defendents and all possible crimes and all possible cases. As if an attack on one is an attack on all. Because clearly we live in a world where people receive equal treatment and levelling criticism against the most privileged and insulated from the consequences of their actions is also criticising everyone else. Whyever would I get the impression that you're arguing in favour of the status quo because you like it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 00:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Ok, this is fantastic. We've broken the issue down to it's root: you care more that this particular person be denied justice because of what he did than you care about what happens to the justice system if you got your way. edit: Mr. Nice! posted:I had made an assumption that the new york rules followed the model rules. I looked it up and they do. As a practical matter, as well, you don't really turn down cases in private criminal defense. The consultation is to set the price. The more heinous the charge, the higher the fee. Fees are typically flat rate unless someone can afford hourly. Then it's $400/hr around here at a minimum. twodot fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
You're all morons. He's not guilty yet so there's no reason to worry about who's defending him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:00
|
|
|
Acceptance and Retention of Employment EC 2-26 A lawyer is under no obligation to act as advisor or advocate for every person who may wish to become a client; but in furtherance of the objective of the bar to make legal services fully available, a lawyer should not lightly decline proffered employment. The fulfillment of this objective requires acceptance by a lawyer of a fair share of tendered employment which may be unattractive both to the lawyer and the bar generally. EC 2-27 History is replete with instances of distinguished sacrificial services by lawyers who have represented unpopular clients and causes. Regardless of personal feelings, a lawyer should not decline representation because a client or a cause is unpopular or community reaction is adverse. A lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities. EC 2-28 The personal preference of a lawyer to avoid adversary alignment against judges, other lawyers, public officials or influential members of the community does not justify rejection of tendered employment. EC 2-29 When a lawyer is appointed by a court or requested by a bar association to undertake representation of a person unable to obtain counsel, whether for financial or other reasons, the lawyer should not seek to be excused from undertaking the representation except for compelling reasons. Compelling reasons do not include such factors as the repugnance of the subject matter of the proceeding, the identity or position of a person involved in the case, the belief of the lawyer that the defendant in a criminal proceeding is guilty, or the belief of the lawyer regarding the merits of the civil case. EC 2-30 Employment should not be accepted by a lawyer who is unable to render competent service or who knows or it is obvious that the person seeking to employ the lawyer desires to institute or maintain an action merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring another. Likewise, a lawyer should decline employment if the intensity of personal feelings, as distinguished from a community attitude, may impair effective representation of a prospective client. If a lawyer knows that a client has previously obtained counsel, the lawyer should not accept employment in the matter unless the other counsel approves or withdraws, or the client terminates the prior employment. EC 2-31 Full availability of legal counsel requires both that persons be able to obtain counsel and that lawyers who undertake representation complete the work involved. Trial counsel for a convicted defendant should continue to represent the client by advising whether to take an appeal and, if the appeal is prosecuted, by representing the client through the appeal unless new counsel is substituted or withdrawal is permitted by the appropriate court. EC 2-32 A decision by a lawyer to withdraw should be made only on the basis of compelling circumstances and, in a matter pending before a tribunal, the lawyer must comply with the rules of the tribunal regarding withdrawal. A lawyer should not withdraw without considering carefully and endeavoring to minimize the possible adverse effect on the rights of the client and the possibility of prejudice to the client as a result of the withdrawal. Even when withdrawal is justifiable, a lawyer should protect the welfare of the client by giving due notice of the withdrawal, suggesting employment of other counsel, delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled, cooperating with counsel subsequently employed, and otherwise endeavoring to minimize the possibility of harm. Further, the lawyer should refund to the client any compensation not earned during the employment. EC 2-33 As a part of the legal profession's commitment to the principle that high quality legal services should be available to all, lawyers are encouraged to cooperate with qualified legal assistance organizations providing prepaid legal services. Such participation should at all times be in accordance with the basic tenets of the profession: independence, integrity, competence and devotion to the interests of individual clients. A lawyer so participating should make certain that the relationship with a qualified legal assistance organization in no way interferes with independent, professional representation of the interests of the individual client. A lawyer should avoid situations in which officials of the organization who are not lawyers attempt to direct lawyers concerning the manner in which legal services are performed for individual members and should also avoid situations in which considerations of economy are given undue weight in determining the lawyers employed by an organization or the legal services to be performed for the member or beneficiary, rather than competence and quality of service. A lawyer interested in maintaining the historic traditions of the profession and preserving the function of a lawyer as a trusted and independent advisor to individual members of society should carefully assess such factors when accepting employment by, or otherwise participating in a particular, qualified legal assistance organization and, while so participating, should adhere to the highest professional standards of effort and competence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:01
|
|
|
I'll go one further: we should celebrate any attorney who works to prevent the government from incarcerating anyone!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'll go one further: we should celebrate any attorney who works to prevent the government from incarcerating anyone! Again a complete refusal to acknowledge the entire concept of power differentials in society lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Likewise, a lawyer should decline employment if the intensity of personal feelings, as distinguished from a community attitude, may impair effective representation of a prospective client. e. Ok so Sullivan can ethically refuse to represent Weinstein, thanks for clearing that up
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
Woozy posted:You're all morons. He's not guilty yet so there's no reason to worry about who's defending him. Exactly. To say that private defense attorneys ought to reject Weinstein (or anyone else) on the grounds of moral outrage over the alleged crime is to declare him guilty without a trial. Which, according to the legal system of every society worth living in, is a major no-no. Not to mention that complaining about high-priced private defense attorneys will do precisely fuckall to reform the public defender system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:36
|
|
|
A lot of people have convinced themselves that, once an injustice that offends them is perpetrated on everyone, then people will see that they were right all along, and change will surely happen! The fact that this is never how it goes does not deter them.twodot posted:I do feel differently because I've never said any of that and in fact said the opposite of all of this. You are just lying about what I want. twodot posted:So they do have a choice, up until a court orders them to take the client.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So what exactly is the result that you want to achieve by all this? quote:In the same way that you have a choice to keep stolen money up until a court orders you to return it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:? Also, just morally speaking if 1. You know an unpleasant job must be done by someone 2. You are capable of doing the job as well as anyone else is Then 3. You really should do the job. I don't *enjoy* picking up trash on the beach but I still do it. Someone's gotta, might as well be me. That basic calculation doesn't change if someone offered me a shitload of cash to do it. Someone has to represent every criminal and most crimes are pretty awful. Weinstein is no different in that regard. He just pays more than the average. His attorney is not inherently different from any other rapist's defense attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:I would like people to agree that lawyers should be judged by their choices. The choice to.... associate with possible criminals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Oh wait the original question was should we judge lawyers for their clients? Yes, except for public defenders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The choice to.... associate with possible criminals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
I want to know, in two dots estimation, how many of the 1,297 whites lynched in the United States between 1865 and 1968 deserved it? How many of the 3,446 blacks? In a nation where Black people were killed by mob justice in living memory it’s bonechilling to see anyone suggest that making sure a Black lawyer feels “consequences” for his decision to defend a Jewish man accused of being inappropriate with white women. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 02:14 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:59 |
|
|
I am not sure lynchings are a good example of the morality of the American justice system since it was effectively legal, and we still haven't even passed a federal law against it
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 02:15
|
|