|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:well I'm a practicing lawyer Have you considered not doing that?
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
I dunno, guys, gals, and non-binary pals, seems to me being a lawyer might be one of the things being in law school is in fact an improvement from. Just make sure those scholarships aren't gpa-linked, young man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Have you considered not doing that? This
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 01:31
|
|
|
Law school was fun, I enjoyed it, and sometimes get nostalgic about it, but I much prefer knowing what the gently caress I’m doing and getting paid to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 01:32
|
|
|
First time you got laid huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 02:02
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:First time you got laid huh? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 02:15
|
|
|
Curious to know what people think about this. Short version is: dad assaults daughter at age two, served three years in jail. She dies at 18 to causes associated with the injuries she sustained, he's now charged with murder. I get the reasoning behind charging him, but I think something about the gap between the assault and her death just doesn't sit quite right with me, 16 years is a long time. But like I say, curious about what others think, open to changing my mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Curious to know what people think about this. Short version is: dad assaults daughter at age two, served three years in jail. She dies at 18 to causes associated with the injuries she sustained, he's now charged with murder. At first I was mad so I thought, "gently caress him, go back to jail bitch." but upon further review, unless she's been like, on life support for 16 years and they finally pulled the plug, then it's hard to imagine the Assault directly causing the death, in a conceptual way that feels fair in other, less emotionally charged, hypotheticals
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 13:41
|
|
|
Seems like maybe you should get harsher punishment for giving a toddler a TBI???
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 13:42
|
|
|
I think a lot of jurisdictions have a one-year time limit for that sort of after-resulting effects. I feel the bigger issue is he's already been tried and sentenced on that assault and this is, while technically a different offense, an different offense with many overlapping elements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think a lot of jurisdictions have a one-year time limit for that sort of after-resulting effects. The "year and a day" rule was common law based on medical technology more than two centuries ago. Rogers v. Tennesse has upheld abolishing it. California for instance has a rebuttable presumption against the death being criminal if it occurs more than three years after, which seems like a better way to go. I don't know what the law is in Australia but if it's along those lines of rebuttable presumption I don't have a problem with it. In this case the kid got a TBI as a very young child and has been in hospice as a direct result for it for the past several years. Understanding of brain injuries is something that has increased quite a lot in the past few decades. There's still quite a lot of room for error in the science, but that's why rebuttable presumption seems fair to me. I don't have any issue with this case going to trial on those facts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 14:29
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:
If we're going to apply modern understanding of neuroscience to the law, then we need to start abolishing the whole notion of criminal culpability. That sword must cut both ways. The lead-crime hypothesis alone throws a gigantic wrench in the whole concept of personal culpability period; if the clean air act did more to reduce crime than the entire DOJ did over the same timeframe -- and it provably did, at least to a high degree of confidence -- then people's decisions don't cause crime, brain damage does, and locking people up over it in punishment makes about as much sense as the deodand. Like, hell, 95% of the clients I've had on indecent exposure charges, there was a documentable TBI in their history (the other 5% either I couldn't document it or they were just so drunk they had no concept of reality). If we start updating the criminal law to reflect modern neuroscience the entire edifice collapses and no one is provably guilty of anything because virtually every criminal defendant has a broken brain. I realize I'm basically throwing over the table here and not arguing based on anything approaching our current law anywhere in the world. Nevertheless, Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:11 on Nov 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Curious to know what people think about this. Short version is: dad assaults daughter at age two, served three years in jail. She dies at 18 to causes associated with the injuries she sustained, he's now charged with murder. It could change the charge I guess, but all other factors being equal, doesn't seem clear to me there should be a very large difference for sentencing someone who causes injury leading to that degree of injury versus just outright killing them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
When I was in law school there was a similar case out of England, and the guy was successfully convicted and sentenced to a few more years in prison. I mean, it does sort of fall alongside the 'brittle bones' concept, you gotta take your plaintiff/victim as they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 17:19
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:It could change the charge I guess, but all other factors being equal, doesn't seem clear to me there should be a very large difference for sentencing someone who causes injury leading to that degree of injury versus just outright killing them. Yeah I mean I'd be fine with that, but my hang up is her death 16 years later, and additional charge after original completed jail term. I mean I get there's an argument to be made saying "morally, it doesn't matter if they die five minutes after your actions or fifty years" but like I say, in this instance, 16 year years later and after an original (insufficient) sentence is... ehhh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 22:02
|
|
|
Law School is fun if you do it the right way. have someone else pay for it
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 07:31
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Yeah I mean I'd be fine with that, but my hang up is her death 16 years later, and additional charge after original completed jail term. I mean I get there's an argument to be made saying "morally, it doesn't matter if they die five minutes after your actions or fifty years" but like I say, in this instance, 16 year years later and after an original (insufficient) sentence is... ehhh. Well yeah. There's actually two issues here you're putting a finger on. Major point: how do you handle a criminal act that has repercussions long after the fact? Minor point: at what point does double jeopardy apply to such a case. To my mind this comes down to legislation. For the first point, in Norway the domestic abuse statute has a wording to deal with this specifically, wherein if the DV incident causes lasting harm or death he'd be looking at possibly 15 years at tge outset, which yeah if she was in hospice for 16 years after the crime he'd be welcome to the full stretch in my opinion. And a couple of other things besides. So just from the medical facts he'd get close to 2/3rds of a full murder sentence in the original conviction. That said, even if he were convicted for the wrong thing (violence) double jeopardy wouldn't apply to a murder case within the statute of limitations (25 years) if there's a causal link. Unless Zolotukhin V. Russia applies. Which it might, which is why we changed all our violence statutes to include lasting damage and death. Now, if you didn't have a specific statute so murder in dv is just murder, and the death is causally linked (which I would accept if she was in hospice her whole remaining life), and the death isn't past statute of limitations, and it isn't double jeopardy, then the guy graduated to murderer when she died and he should be convicted of murder. Depending on how you handle concurrence he could get time served for the dv or not. Imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 09:23
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Well yeah. There's actually two issues here you're putting a finger on. imagine changing legislation to comply with ECHR jurisprudence what a joke
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Law School is fun if you do it the right way. With all the possibilities for that spoiler tag, you really went with the latest (but most honest, I guess) option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:With all the possibilities for that spoiler tag, you really went with the latest (but most honest, I guess) option. Traveling pants don’t pay for themselves
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 02:18
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Hey thread. Long time first time. Go to law school* *Go to law school Vox Nihili fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Nov 26, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
TheMadMilkman posted:With all the possibilities for that spoiler tag, you really went with the latest (but most honest, I guess) option. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2021 14:08
|
|
|
I thought I was all set on my CLEs but apparently I also have to watch an hour-long video about not being an alcoholic/coke fiend/depressed/etc. Buddy,
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 06:00
|
|
|
Still doing DARE huh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 07:26
|
|
|
Take a shot every time you're bored.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
at least like half the CLEs i have watched have been about dealing with substance abuse, mental illness, and not killing yourself i did not get help because of a CLE
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:at least like half the CLEs i have watched have been about dealing with substance abuse, mental illness, and not killing yourself If anything having to watch CLE‘s are more likely to lead to those things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Bonus bonuses again https://abovethelaw.com/2021/12/davis-polk-bonuses-21/
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 21:53
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Bonus bonuses again I'm getting a company vest. This isn't a stock compensation joke. We're literally getting vests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2021 23:48
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #38 posted:I'm getting a company vest. This isn't a stock compensation joke. We're literally getting vests. I got one of those as a win bonus once. I’d have preferred 0.01% of the money we saved them by winning, personally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 00:13
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #38 posted:I'm getting a company vest. This isn't a stock compensation joke. We're literally getting vests. Hey those Paragonia vests are nice!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 02:16
|
|
|
I mean I'm wearing my p nice firm hoodie right now (it's one of the ones that's all fuzzy inside), and I like it, but I don't in-lieu-of-many-dollars like it. Aka you bought my life, now pay up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 14:09
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I thought I was all set on my CLEs but apparently I also have to watch an hour-long video about not being an alcoholic/coke fiend/depressed/etc. OTOH that hour really flies by if you're drinking, gambling, and doing bong rips.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2021 21:36
|
|
|
Unamuno posted:OTOH that hour really flies by if you're drinking, gambling, and doing bong rips. Confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
shoulda done more bong rips, less drinking
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:shoulda done more bong rips, less drinking Thread title!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2021 20:42
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:shoulda done more bong rips, less drinking I think I do still need one substance abuse CLE for my next renewal, any recs for good ones to watch high?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:I think I do still need one substance abuse CLE for my next renewal, any recs for good ones to watch high? Just buy the cheap ones! That said they often have a ton of substance abuse related ones and occasionally ones with funny titles. https://www.attorneycredits.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:I think I do still need one substance abuse CLE for my next renewal, any recs for good ones to watch high? The one I watched featured a former alcoholic/meth addict and I he sounded maaaaybe not quite sober throughout.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
I will never not find it funny that you people have to do CLEs about substance abuse I will also never not find it funny (and sad) that CLE is the tool of choice for the profession to deploy against substance abuse
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 20:46
|
|