Nevvy Z posted:
Sure. Thing is though someone needs to do the job. If people were only making "Sullivan is creepy" arguments that would be one thing. But instead people are making a lot of "Weinstein is *bad*, therefore" arguments, and those arguments destabilize the whole criminal justice system and the concept of criminal defense generally, which hurts everyone not just Weinstein. Sullivan might be horrible in all sorts of ways. Criticize him for that, not for defending accused criminals. quote:He should be put in the position where he cannot find representation and the courts have no choice but to appoint someone even if that doesn't fit into our current schema of public defense. Thing is, if the discussion is about judging Sullivan, we have to judge him in the context of the *current* schema of public defense, not the one we should. It's just not valid to judge private bar criminal attorneys for taking money from clients because they're filling a need that the government doesn't fill; those accused rich people can't get appointed attorneys. If you want to judge Sullivan, change the law about public defenders first. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:11 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:42 |
|
What I'm hearing is that we can't judge greedy lawyers for their greed because even the rich need lawyers. This seems flatly illogical. I'm not required to fix society before I judge greedy people. It keeps getting framed as judging them for defending criminals, but it's not. It's judging their greed. I judge greedy doctors in a way I don't judge those volunteering for DWB. Nevvy Z posted:Rowling doesn't, based on her wealth, deserve access to doctors and healthcare beyond what the others in her community have access to. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Jun 14, 2019 |
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:16 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What I'm trying to do is parse out the "weinstein is Rich and Bad, so therefore he does not deserve to be able to hire an attorney" argument. Ah ok, so I haven't made my position clear. No problem: I think that there is a separate special justice system just for the rich where outcomes are pretty much for sale, and everyone involved makes a ton of money off that. I think that everyone who participates in and profits from this system is bad (with allowances for special circumstances, etc, under which I might not judge every single individual as bad). Sullivan is one of those people, he isn't defending Weinstein because he's a martyr to the cause of justice or because his kids will starve if he doesn't. No one is even trying to argue that he's doing it for any reason other than greed, because he loving obviously isn't (that's why all the arguments take the form: "but what if he were a completely different person living in completely different circumstance" and my response to that is "yes if things were different things would be different"). If you want to argue that the healthcare system is essentially no different at the top, I am willing to change my mind and say yeah the greedy doctors are part of the problem and should be judged as such, and shouldn't be judged the same as the noble doctors.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:30 |
|
Stop accusing each other of being secret nazis or antisemites without some kind of actual concrete proof. This is in response to reports, I am not up to date on the thread. That is all.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:31 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's just not valid to judge private bar criminal attorneys for taking money from clients because they're filling a need that the government doesn't fill; those accused rich people can't get appointed attorneys. If you want to judge Sullivan, change the law about public defenders first. No I don't have to do this because the constitution already guarantees everyone who can't obtain counsel on their own the right to have one. State laws that don't make allowances for any reason other than poverty that one might be unable to obtain counsel are unconstitutional. If the situation actually arose where no private attorneys would take Weinstein's money, and the judge in his case said "I don't believe you can't find an attorney and the law won't let me appoint one anyway, the trial is next Tuesday and if you show up without one the trial will proceed as if you waived your right to counsel", then he could appeal his conviction on the grounds that his sixth amendment rights were violated and the federal courts would side with him and order New York to appoint him an attorney and give him a new trial.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:35 |
Nevvy Z posted:What I'm hearing is that we can't judge greedy lawyers for their greed because even the rich need lawyers. This seems flatly illogical. I'm not required to fix society before I judge greedy people. Yeah, you can judge people for greed sure, so long as you aren't judging them for defending criminals. A lot of folks itt and elsewhere *are* making arguments that amount to "defending criminals is bad" and they shouldn't make those arguments. OTOH if Sullivan's worst crime is fleecing Weinstein out of a shitload of money and then providing him legal services no better than what Weinstein would get from an appionted atty, that doesn't seem like a sin worth all this fuss. Oh no a rich rapist is getting scammed Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 14:37 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:35 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, you can judge people for free sure, so long as you aren't judging them for defending criminals. A lot of folks itt and elsewhere *are* making arguments that amount to "defending criminals is bad" and they shouldn't make those arguments. If Sullivan is scamming people out of greed then he actually is a bad person, hth!
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:37 |
VitalSigns posted:If Sullivan is scamming people out of greed then he actually is a bad person, hth! Sure but he's like Dexter, he's only preys on other even more horrible people
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:39 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure but he's like Dexter, he's only preys on other even more horrible people If that's the case then fine. But I don't think it is.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:41 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Sure but he's like Dexter, he's only preys on other even more horrible people I mean proof would be prefered. Also if the worst he is going to get for doing this good deed is "not allowed to be in charge of something at a school" then perhaps that is the price you pay for doing something noble quietly.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:42 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:OTOH if Sullivan's worst crime is fleecing Weinstein out of a shitload of money and then providing him legal services no better than what Weinstein would get from an appionted atty, that doesn't seem like a sin worth all this fuss. Oh no a rich rapist is getting scammed Weird assumption.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:44 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:Weird assumption. Yeah there's this underlying contradiction here where people want to argue that (1) high-priced legal teams make no difference in trial outcomes, but also (2) somehow the rich can't get a fair trial without these high-priced legal teams that make no difference. It makes no sense, but ultimately it's what you have to believe if you want to say the legal system is fair and just but also defend the right of rich people to pay more for better service.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:47 |
VitalSigns posted:Ah ok, so I haven't made my position clear. No problem: I think this is an overly simplistic analysis. It's not some conspiracy in dark robes; rich people get a separate justice system because of pervasive things like class bias and racial bias and so forth. Rich defense attorneys are an infinitesimally small part of that systemic bias. You're blaming one individual for participating in capitalism.
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:48 |
Nevvy Z posted:Weird assumption. We went over it a few pages back, its supported by data. Generally public defenders do a better or equal job to private defense attorneys, statistically speaking at least. private defense bar is not any better than the public bar overall.
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:49 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We went over it a few pages back, its supported by data. Generally public defenders do a better or equal job to private defense attorneys, statistically speaking at least. private defense bar is not any better than the public bar overall. We aren't talking about all private defense generally though. Hieronymous Alloy posted:You're blaming one individual for participating in capitalism.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:50 |
VitalSigns posted:Yeah there's this underlying contradiction here where people want to argue that (1) high-priced legal teams make no difference in trial outcomes, but also (2) somehow the rich can't get a fair trial without these high-priced legal teams that make no difference. It's not an assumption it's the current law. Rich people don't have access to the public defenders. You can claim they should, but they dont , so
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:51 |
|
We can claim two things are wrong at once.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:53 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think this is an overly simplistic analysis. It's not some conspiracy in dark robes; rich people get a separate justice system because of pervasive things like class bias and racial bias and so forth. Rich defense attorneys are an infinitesimally small part of that systemic bias. You're blaming one individual for participating in capitalism. That's ok I am fine with blaming people who are part of the problem for being part of the problem. I don't think I shouldn't do anything about problem A because problem B also exists, I think that would be absurd. I don't think blaming people for participating in capitalism is wrong. Pinkerton was "participating in capitalism". Steve Mnuchin is "participating in capitalism". Jamie Dimon, Donald Trump, Sam Walton, Mitt Romney, and on and on. What I do believe is that actions taken coercion (can be) justifiable, and since poverty is coercive, I might not blame a poor person for doing a bad thing in order to live, but I would definitely blame a rich person for doing that same bad thing in order to buy a third yacht to carry his yacht-carrying yacht. Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's not an assumption it's the current law. Rich people don't have access to the public defenders. You can claim they should, but they dont , so The constitution says they do, those laws are unconstitutional, if the situation actually arose where a rich person needed access to a public defender and didn't get it, federal courts would side with them on appeal.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:53 |
VitalSigns posted:If that's the case then fine. What else has Sullivan done other than defend rich assholes?
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:54 |
VitalSigns posted:That's ok I am fine with blaming people who are part of the problem for being part of the problem. This might be part of our split. As per my first few posts in the thread, I don't really think blame or judgement are valid concepts. We're all bound and controlled by the systems we live within with far less free will than we believe we have. If you want to change behavior, don't bother with blame, change the overall system..
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:57 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:What else has Sullivan done other than defend rich assholes? Said that sexual assault isn't real and women are making it all up. Said that women are too stupid to reach the same heights in their fields as men and that's why gender disparities exist. If he secretly believes his legal defense is worthless, and he is deliberately scamming the rich in order to give to the poor, and in order to carry out his long con he has to pretend to be a greedy self-absorbed misogynistic asswipe, then either (1) prove it, or (2) I guess my social disapproval is part of the price he unfortunately pays for being an undercover selfless martyr pretending to be a monster, godspeed
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 14:58 |
VitalSigns posted:Said that sexual assault isn't real and women are making it all up. Said that women are too stupid to reach the same heights in their fields as men and that's why gender disparities exist. Ok yeah all that's horrible He can be a horrible person regardless of his status as a criminal defense attorney
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:00 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This might be part of our split. As per my first few posts in the thread, I don't really think blame or judgement are valid concepts. We're all bound and controlled by the systems we live within with far less free will than we believe we have. If you want to change behavior, don't bother with blame, change the overall system.. That's fine my argument is that disapproval of the powerful is a prerequisite for changing the system that benefits them. I don't know what change you expect to happen if "gee maybe the people running things right now are...bad?" is a bridge too far. Should I not criticize Donald Trump either?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:01 |
VitalSigns posted:That's fine my argument is that disapproval of the powerful is a prerequisite for changing the system that benefits them. Criticize away just avoid the specific criticism "providing legal defense to bad people is bad" because that narrative will hurt the poor worse than it hurts the powerful. If Sullivan is a bad person fire him for being a bad person not for being a defense attorney.
|
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:03 |
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Criticize away just avoid the specific criticism "providing legal defense to bad people is bad" No problem, I have not said this, and in fact have said that providing legal defense to bad people is not inherently bad, in fact it's good that's why I want more public defenders.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:06 |
|
Have y'all discussed the issue that a Harvard law professor is a bad choice for a lawyer?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:18 |
|
Should we judge clients for not firing their Harvard lawyers into the sun?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:26 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Have y'all discussed the issue that a Harvard law professor is a bad choice for a lawyer? The guy used to be the head public defender in Washingtom DC before he went to Harvard
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:32 |
|
That doesn't mean he's a good criminal defense attorney either - but it certainly points toward it being more than likely true. I don't know his trial history, but I would suspect he's pretty experienced.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:42 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Said that sexual assault isn't real and women are making it all up. Said that women are too stupid to reach the same heights in their fields as men and that's why gender disparities exist. Can you link some sources about this? That would certainly be juicy reading.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:49 |
|
wateroverfire posted:Can you link some sources about this? That would certainly be juicy reading. Main Paineframe posted:Even when you go out of your way to pretend it's all about the Weinstein case, you still couldn't manage to completely hide any mention of the misconduct Sullivan was actually fired for, which should be a clear sign of just how severe his misbehavior was. I may have confused the stuff with a different Harvard dean E: ok yeah I did, that was a Harvard president who said women are too stupid to hire. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Jun 14, 2019 |
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:52 |
|
VitalSigns posted:That's fine my argument is that disapproval of the powerful is a prerequisite for changing the system that benefits them. It's not though. In fact, to the extent this disapproval is grounds for petty bitching on the internet, it's actually worse than useless: it makes you stupid. Here we have yet another irreducible social contagion ("greed") for which the proposed solution is individual moralizing, a recipe for loving nothing as always, but what's specifically odious about this case is that it sent you sprinting to the right, shedding every worthwhile principle of liberal legal tradition along the way. For what? To get one loving guy who's already going down. Consider a little strategy, please. Public shame is no antidote to private excess. That's precisely the system in which the Weinsteins of the world thrive. It's the one that already exists: "if this gets out, I'm finished". There are two predictable responses to this system: 1) to hate you, Mrs. Lovejoy, and 2) fraud, secrecy, and manipulation. Do you really think you can play the latter game better than the private sector professionals? The pre-requisite for politics--any politics--is action, not thought.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 15:59 |
|
VitalSigns posted:I think that there is a separate special justice system just for the rich where outcomes are pretty much for sale, and everyone involved makes a ton of money off that. I'll post this again, since I've already posted it twice and I guess you didn't bother to read it, because if you had you'd be glad that you're wrong! blarzgh posted:https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=772 VitalSigns posted:I think that everyone who participates in and profits from this system is bad (with allowances for special circumstances, etc, under which I might not judge every single individual as bad). Since the aforementioned is categorically untrue, you don't need to feel this way anymore! Congratulations! VitalSigns posted:Sullivan is one of those people, he isn't defending Weinstein because he's a martyr to the cause of justice or because his kids will starve if he doesn't. No one is even trying to argue that he's doing it for any reason other than greed, because he loving obviously isn't Here is the juice, though. You're saying, "I, VitalSigns, poster cum laude and all-knowing, all-seeing eye of Agamemnon KNOW, with absolute certainty, the motivations and innermost thoughts of this complex human being, living thousands of miles away, because I have read several tweets about the client he intends to represent. And further, I thusly adjudicate this person forthwith with my god-like powers of divination of intent, and he is thus rendered and adjudged GUILTY of wanting to make money without also wanting or thinking of anything else." Did you know Sullivan represented Michal Brown's family in their wrongful death case? https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2018/03/06/prosecutor-adds-attorney-for-michael-brown-family.html Did you know Sullivan represented Selorm Ohene in his police brutality against Cambridge police? https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/...nline_Text_Link Did you know Sullivan represented a young sexual assault victim, pro bono, in her efforts to bring charges against her perpetrator? (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/12/harvard-harvey-weinstein-now-cause-for-concern/GXpf7wL9mbnWRTfLrfTrRM/story.html) Did you know Sullivan won the release of more wrongfully incarcerated individuals — over 6,000 — than arguably anyone in U.S. history? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/an-unsung-hero-in-our-midst-ronald-s-sullivan-jr_b_59769731e4b0940189700c36 Maybe next time you think you KNOW everything there is to KNOW about someone and their infinite motivations, when you're ready to pass judgment, you can take 7 seconds to google them first. quote:“It’s completely flawed to suggest that attorneys can’t step into and out of roles and representations and keep them separate,” said the woman [Dean Sullivan represented in her sexual assault case], who went on to become a sex crimes prosecutor. “Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to have lives.”
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 16:01 |
|
drat sounds like he's actually good. That's reassuring. Glad I didn't read anything but op and blarzgh's posts. vvvvv it's weird that my two greatest allies are blarzgh and vital signs but here we are Hot Dog Day #91 fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jun 14, 2019 |
# ? Jun 14, 2019 16:06 |
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:drat sounds like he's actually good. That's reassuring. Glad I didn't read anything but op and blarzgh's posts. You're a national treasure.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 16:07 |
|
VitalSigns posted:I may have confused the stuff with a different Harvard dean So digging into the article MP linked yields the following, apparantly. A professor at Harvard, Ronald Fryer, was under Title IX investigation. This article , which was referenced in the Crimson article MP linked, describes the situation in a little more detail and contains the quotes from Sullivan. Whole article is worth a read but I'll reproduce the quotes here. quote:While Fryer declined to comment on the university’s procedures, his lawyer, Harvard law professor Ronald Sullivan, told me that “this process has been deeply flawed and deeply unfair. … It shows what the current [#MeToo] movement, some blood in the water, and good coaching [of witnesses] can produce.” So it seems Sullivan was deeply critical of the handling of a Title IX complaint against a colleague of his. MP, is that what you had in mind makes him a bad person? edit: Another quote from the article that seems apropos for this thread.. quote:Says one Fryer supporter at Harvard: “There’s a climate of fear of defending Roland. You can’t be seen to be out of line on this. If you defend someone who’s accused, there’s an attitude that you’re perpetuating the system and we’re coming after you next, because you must be guilty too.” edit2: Further edit to add more Sullivan quotes from the article. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Jun 14, 2019 |
# ? Jun 14, 2019 16:11 |
|
Blarzgh you keep saying a set of statistics that is broad (private defense vs public defense) is disproving a narrower premise (the private defense of the rich specificially) that they don't apply to. If they applied, then the rich wouldn't be paying out the wazoo for expensive lawyers like they do. You seem to also be implying that someone who did good things cant have done bad things or shouldn't be judged for those bad things. But they should. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jun 14, 2019 |
# ? Jun 14, 2019 16:12 |
|
wateroverfire posted:So digging into the article MP linked yields the following, apparantly. A professor at Harvard, Ronald Fryer, was under Title IX investigation. This article , which was referenced in the Crimson article MP linked, describes the situation in a little more detail and contains the quotes from Sullivan. Whole article is worth a read but I'll reproduce the quotes here. He also explains that the perceived railroading of Fryer was racist in its implementation.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 16:14 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:Blarzgh you keep saying a set of statistics that is broad is disproving a narrower premise that they don't apply to. The narrow premise is that money buys you better representation. I have access only to information that tends to show that isn't true. I have personal exposure to a system and set of facts that tell me that isn't true. Why should I change my mind?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 16:18 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:42 |
|
That's amazing. Can't wait for the "so what your position is is that rape of underage baby seals is okay and that's something I a virtuous and good debater oppose". Should be any minute now. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Jun 14, 2019 16:21 |