|
Really not improving my view of lawyers when you invoke racism and antisemitism to defend a rich rapist tbqh.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Ideally lawyers would choose to make moral choices independently of consequences to those choices, and there would never present a need to judge their choices, but absent lawyers behaving morally it seems important to be able to say "This lawyer made an immoral choice".
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Really not improving my view of lawyers when you invoke racism and antisemitism to defend a rich rapist tbqh. Sadly, we have no idea how to see in your heart so we really can't know if it'd turn out your gut declares more jews horrible monsters or not. Which is the flaw in this "trust me, I'd only declare the right people horrible monsters" system you are cooking up. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 02:25
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Sadly, we have no idea how to see in your heart so we really can't know if it'd turn out your gut declares more jews horrible monsters or not. Which is the flaw in this "trust me, I'd only declare the right people horrible monsters" system you are cooking up. Hmm yes you can't imagine how my "wow I really loving hate rich people cos they are part of this two tiered society that fucks up the majority of people in the world" schtick might identify assholes. Clearly I've been doing it by throwing darts at a board up to now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Sadly, we have no idea how to see in your heart so we really can't know if it'd turn out your gut declares more jews horrible monsters or not. Which is the flaw in this "trust me, I'd only declare the right people horrible monsters" system you are cooking up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:To catch you up, the response is "Aha, but the poor are given the choice of an assigned defender or nothing, so why should the rich be allowed to pay for their choice of lawyer? If being assigned a PD is not a violation of the right to choose your own counsel, why can we not force the wealthy to make the same choice?" making moral judgements doesnt negate the right to a public defender you stupid bastard 200 new posts because you dense fucks cant separate morality and right to counsel
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:00
|
|
|
This entire thread: Me: "People shouldn't voluntarily support monsters" "What if a lack of support results in degraded legal representation" Me: "It won't because court appointed defenders will represent anyone not able to obtain representation on their own" "Are you saying public defenders are bad and so you want monsters to have inadequate representation?" Me: "No, I'm not saying that and I have never said that" "What if I just continuously falsely claim you did say that!?" Me: "please stop" twodot fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
you keep saying that if you treat defense attorneys like christians treat abortionists that it will somehow dismantle patriarchy. i have too much respect for the human species to think that any member of it could be that stupid, so the only explanation is you're a fascist arguing in bad faith to try to rehabilitate the systematically racist and unjust criminal justice system by finding some way to blame its shortcomings on defense attorneys this is directly in the face of everyone with personal or professional experience with that system patiently explaining to you why you are full of poo poo DOCTOR ZIMBARDO fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:12
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:you keep saying that if you treat defense attorneys like christians treat abortionists that it will somehow dismantle patriarchy. i have too much respect for the human species to think that any member of it could be that stupid, so the only explanation is you're a fascist arguing in bad faith to try to rehabilitate the systematically racist and unjust criminal justice system by finding some way to blame its shortcomings on defense attorneys solving racism via profit motive: a real thought you are having
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
"The ability of wealth to buy immunity from legal consequences is a big part of why the criminal justice system is unfair and unequal." "WHY DO YOU HATE HARD WORKING DEFENSE LAWYERS?????"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:
The "private criminal defense attorneys are bad" argument would have a lot more weight if people didn't keep making basic factual errors over and over again (court appointed defenders cannot represent people who have money, we've been over this, and no, no judge is going to appoint someone to represent a theoretical universally rejected client because that doesn't happen and the judge would't believe it if it did). I mean criminal defense attorneys might in fact be bad people but it's an independent variable from whether or not they represent other bad people who are criminals
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:19
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:you keep saying that if you treat defense attorneys like christians treat abortionists that it will somehow dismantle patriarchy. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:this is directly in the face of everyone with personal or professional experience with that system patiently explaining to you why you are full of poo poo Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Here is the real truth: the justice system only benefits the rich and powerful. Source: I'm a lawyer for the poor, formerly, and for the rich and powerful, currently. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Oh wait the original question was should we judge lawyers for their clients? Yes, except for public defenders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The "private criminal defense attorneys are bad" argument would have a lot more weight if people didn't keep making basic factual errors over and over again If only someone had suggested that this should be changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The "private criminal defense attorneys are bad" argument would have a lot more weight if people didn't keep making basic factual errors over and over again 1) Lawyers don't give a poo poo about morality, and any client with the wealth to hire a lawyer will always find representation so judging lawyers for their clients never matters or 2) Lawyers could theoretically give a poo poo about morality, and there could exist clients no lawyer would represent, and in that situation courts (or the bar) would appoint a lawyer, so judging lawyers does not reduce clients' access to representation But the idea that a person could be denied a lawyer via social opinion and a judge wouldn't be able to recognize that situation is thoroughly absurd edit: You are arguing against the wrong stage: "What if a lack of support results in degraded legal representation" is the actual stage you disagree with, which is fine, but go fight those people, because I am not making that argument. twodot fucked around with this message at 03:29 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"The ability of wealth to buy immunity from legal consequences is a big part of why the criminal justice system is unfair and unequal." Your objection is against capitalism, not against the legal system. Or, as was said above, Nevvy Z posted:
it's basically this. We could theoretically nationalize the defense bar industry, sure, but even then - as was discussed above -- there would be a hundred other inequalities deriving from wealth that even nationalizing the defense bar wouldn't fix. Like, even if each individual criminal is somehow represented by the same cloned perfect attorney, even then Some defendants are going to show up in court in better suits Some defendants are going to be white Some defendants are going to speak with fancier accents Some defendants are going to have gone to the same schools as the judge So on, so forth. The inequalities in the legal system due to wealth and class and race go waaaaaaaaay beyond private vs. public representation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Your objection is against capitalism, not against the legal system. Or, as was said above, So let's not do anything because no one thing will fix everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:
Has it ever, ever actually happened? Like, seriously, I'm unaware of a single case where someone who had money has been shunned out of getting a lawyer. Even Donald Trump has managed to hire multiple lawyers. Y'all are pulling a lot of arguments out of places where there's no sunlight. twodot posted:Like I'm willing to believe either: What you're missing is that criminal defense attorneys don't really consider "is my client a lovely person" as part of the math when taking clients. They can't, or they wouldn't ahve any clients. The ethics of being a criminal defense attorney mean you're inherently accepting that you represent lovely people. Anyone who does criminal defense work has made that choice. You can claim that just means all attorneys who do private criminal defense work are evil, BUT then you're saying that performing a necessary social function is inherently an evil act, which can't hold.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
If the argument is that a supreme court case ruling that horrible monsters who can't get a lawyer to take their money have a right to a public defender would never happen because it is impossible for a horrible monster to ever be unable to find a lawyer then fine, but in that case you can't also argue that criticizing their lawyer will leave them unable to get representation. Likewise if the argument is that criticizing a rich guy's lawyer will take away his right to legal representation because then no lawyer will take his money, then you can't also argue that this situation is impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Has it ever, ever actually happened? quote:What you're missing is that criminal defense attorneys don't really consider "is my client a lovely person" as part of the math when taking clients.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the argument is that a supreme court case ruling that horrible monsters who can't get a lawyer to take their money have a right to a public defender would never happen because it is impossible for a horrible monster to ever be unable to find a lawyer then fine, but in that case you can't also argue that criticizing their lawyer will leave them unable to get representation. I'm not really making a "x consequences will happen" argument at all. I doubt any of these instances are generalizable out to general trends and even if they were those trends aren't predictable. I'm not prognosticating any particular result. My argument is that criticizing attorneys for representing criminal defendants -- no matter how horrible the criminal defendant -- is shunning someone for performing a societally necessary task. It's akin to shunning garbagemen, if garbagemen were well paid.* Nobody likes garbage, just like nobody likes criminals, but somebody has to deal with garbage, and somebody has to represent criminal defendants, so it's not fair to criticize garbagemen just because they pick up garbage or attorneys just because they represent criminals. It's lovely work but somebody has to do it. * and yes garbagemen should also be better paid Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:
If criminal defense attorneys did consider "is my client a lovely person" when taking clients , they wouldn't have any clients. All criminal defense attorney clients are lovely people. You're asking a garbageman to only pick up the trash that doesn't smell bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:If criminal defense attorneys did consider "is my client a lovely person" when taking clients , they wouldn't have any clients. All criminal defense attorney clients are lovely people. Perhaps some of them are more lovely than others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's akin to shunning garbagemen, if garbagemen were well paid. edit: Hieronymous Alloy posted:If criminal defense attorneys did consider "is my client a lovely person" when taking clients , they wouldn't have any clients. All criminal defense attorney clients are lovely people. twodot fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:making moral judgements doesnt negate the right to a public defender you stupid bastard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUaHIFpNMcI
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
twodot posted:
That's handwaving though. Nationalizing the private bar isn't going to happen so it's an irrelevancy for discussions of actual current attorneys in the current real world representing real clients now. Sorry everybody, gotta pause the whole legal system until we immanentize the eschaton OwlFancier posted:So let's not do anything because no one thing will fix everything. My first few in the thread had specific proposals --- primarily Hieronymous Alloy posted:
If we're waving our magic socialism wands and enacting large scale reforms, then shifting away from a punitive justice model entirely is probably just as achievable as nationalizing the defense bar, and would do more good. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 03:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I might just be biased because I agree with him, but I am like 99% sure that twodot has not argued this I literally don't know if I was just owned or not but I stand by my position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:00
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That's handwaving though. Nationalizing the private bar isn't going to happen so it's an irrelevancy for discussions of actual current attorneys in the current real world representing real clients now. Why do you think rich people shouldnt get lawyers??
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:Why do you think rich people shouldnt get lawyers?? zuh?I can't figure out how many levels of irony I'm supposed to read that with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not really making a "x consequences will happen" argument at all. I doubt any of these instances are generalizable out to general trends and even if they were those trends aren't predictable. I'm not prognosticating any particular result. If the public garbage collection system were so dysfunctional that millions of people, disproportionately poor and non-white, were trapped and dying under massive piles of garbage, then yeah I'd be comfortable calling a rich dude who is getting richer off this situation by running a private garbage collection system for wealthy monsters a scumbag, whereas I would be fine with people who work for the public collection system even if they were required to service the same wealthy monster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:zuh?I can't figure out how many levels of irony I'm supposed to read that with. Just the usual. Yours is a good post. Others, not so much
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the public garbage collection system were so dysfunctional that millions of people, disproportionately poor and non-white, were trapped and dying under massive piles of garbage, then yeah I'd be comfortable calling a rich dude who is getting richer off this situation by running a private garbage collection system for wealthy monsters a scumbag, whereas I would be fine with people who work for the public collection system even if they were required to service the same wealthy monster. In either case, the dysfunction would not be the fault of the individual garbagemen, but of the monsters who designed the system. For that reason, shunning individual garbagemen, whoever they worked for, would be boneheaded. The answer to such a problem is not at the individual level; it's re-design of the system. The answer to the problems in our legal system will not come from shunning individual defense attorneys. It will only come from systemic reforms. Given the scale of the problem a big part of that reform, the first biggest part, must be getting a hell of a lot of people extricated from the whole legal system in its entirety before they ever get to the crisis point of needing a lawyer at all. That's a real solution. Shunning a defense attorney isn't, it's just scapegoating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
I disagree I think millionaires who profit off a broken system are one of the things stopping that system from being changed, but in any case it's still bad behavior and I will still judge people for doing bad things even if you proved that my judgment alone will have no effect
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
i actually went and checked and it looks like LA has, in fact, privatized its garbage collection https://www.waredisposal.com/city-of-los-angeles-recycla/ Are y'all really holding the position that it would be immoral for a privately employed garbageman to pick up Weinstein's trash? What about a doctor? If he has a heart attack, should a private physician refuse to treat him? I'm wondering how far this shunning doctrine extends
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:21
|
|
|
Physician is a good comparison really because yeah doctors getting filthy rich off sustaining digusting parasites while everyone else gets hosed is quite objectionable. And in fact collective action on the part of the medical profession to refuse to treat the wealthy would be a very good impetus to provide a universal alternative. I believe in duty of care, but in the context of a system where everyone has access to said care. Because otherwise it's not duty of care, it's duty of care (for people rich enough to pay me)
OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Vs please tell me if you quoted me to own me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
No, I am fine with the garbage company employee if the circumstances are more like "I need this job to feed my family" and not "I am rich without this gig but I want to be richer." I don't think that's the case for Sullivan though. I am fine with judging the wealthy owner of the private garbage collection company if he refuses to serve the poor and lets them live in filth but is ok with taking Weinstein's money, but I doubt the contact with the city allows him that discretion. Sure if a doctor turns away poor people then I think it's fair to judge him on the patients he chooses to take. Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Vs please tell me if you quoted me to own me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
In that case I agree with everything vital signs says. As a 2003 regdate, I suspect my vote counts more heavily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 04:40
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:i actually went and checked and it looks like LA has, in fact, privatized its garbage collection edit: If the parallel isn't obvious, is the doctor declining to heal the poor, but accepting specific contracts with individual rich people to heal them? They might also be behaving badly! If there exists a duty to serve, you can't refuse service on the basis that your client can't pay. twodot fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 05:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, I am fine with the garbage company employee if the circumstances are more like "I need this job to feed my family" and not "I am rich without this gig but I want to be richer." I don't think that's the case for Sullivan though. Do you think all criminal lawyers are wealthy? If I'm a broke rear end baby lawyer with student loans in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, can I take on any case I want? Please reply quickly, this is important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Wait. Should the doctor not treat any wealthy person, or only wealthy people who have done specifically horrible things? Should J.K. Rowling be denied medical treatment just because she's rich? twodot posted:If there exists a duty to serve, you can't refuse service on the basis that your client can't pay. Again, this doesn't follow, because there's no such thing as a blanket universal infinite duty. If there exists a duty to serve, then it has limitations and bounds, it isn't infinite. One of those bounds might very easily and rationally be "can the client pay for my services so I can keep my business going, pay rent, etc."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 06:38
|
|