|
OwlFancier posted:No who they choose to defend is important too, when the law functions to entrench inequality and injustice then choosing to defend the rich and powerful absolutely reflects on the individual and cannot be excused by some "oh everyone's entitled to a defence" schtick.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
Randler posted:Criminal defense lawyers provide the same service regardless of whether they are public defenders, employees or freelancers. The distinction the lawyers' motivation to perform that service do not alter my opinion of the service itself. You don't think motivation behind an action matters at all? I guess all surgeons are violent criminals then, look at all the people they cut with knives!
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Indeterminacy posted:I buy the "private legal practice entrenches inequality" argument, but it seems like you're arguing that law itself has been compromised. Sure, gently caress da polis, there is no ethical agency under capitalism, mass revolution now or bust etc. etc. but hypothetically speaking, there are always going to be multiple different avenues of legal representation and specialization in as much as any kind of codified system of social standards of action exists, even if you completely overhaul the system. I don't think this question disappears just because we live in a socialist utopia. Well yeah? The law is the basis for upholding virtually all inequality in the world. The law is the basis of capitalism so necessarily an anticapitalist position must argue that the law as it stands is bad, and have no respect for it as an institution. Use it when it's useful sure but like, when it clearly functions to entrench the power of wealth, gently caress it and gently caress the people who practice it? Like fundamentally the question isn't "is it legal" but "is it right?" and if you can clearly point to something that is wrong despite being legally upheld then the obvious position is to attack the law itself, and its practicioners, until they change it. The law clearly isn't equal so the idea that an attack on the law is an attack on everyone is, I think, wrong. The law serves to punish the vulnerable and protect the powerful, so it's difficult to characterise most attacks on it as bad. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jun 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think motivation behind an action matters at all? Are there really that many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include helping rich assholes get away with horrible crimes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 16:09
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Are there really that many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include helping rich assholes get away with horrible crimes? Probably not many but also who cares. I'm open to a theoretical argument that trying to get rich assholes absolved of their crimes for the sheer love of evil is more ignoble than doing it because it's lucrative, if you want to make that argument. But I can tell you my response will be that they're both wrong even if they aren't equally bad, and "well at least he isn't doing something even worse" isn't much of a moral defense to, well anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Are there really that many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include helping rich assholes get away with horrible crimes? That opens the question of what public defenders are doing. They protect criminals and aren't highly paid. Is the idea that they just love crime so much they do it just for the love of rape being in the world? (which is again the reason why that whole lens is extremely stupid a way to view what trials are)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
Lol are we really pretending the motive of someone who charges $20,000 an hour to defend the rich isn't obvious. And are we really pretending that we can't figure out why someone would be a public defender
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
There's lots of reasons someone would become a public defender (including putting in time for PSLF or building a resume to become one of those super expensive attorneys in private practice), and more lucrative areas in the private sector than criminal defense work, so I don't think you can just assume someone's motives totally based on that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 17:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lol are we really pretending the motive of someone who charges $20,000 an hour to defend the rich isn't obvious. I’m not sure the concept defense lawyers support crime makes any sense at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Are there really that many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include helping rich assholes get away with horrible crimes? Of course there are. Just as there are many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include putting as many poor black people in prison as possible, regardless of their actual guilt. After all, those are the two paths to fame, fortune, and political power for an ambitious lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I’m not sure the concept defense lawyers support crime makes any sense at all. Are you really trying to argue it's metaphysically impossible for any lawyer ever to be motivated by money rather than altruism and belief in public service
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 18:03
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I’m not sure the concept defense lawyers support crime makes any sense at all. it's a concept you yourself constructed so no, it doesn't
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Of course there are. Just as there are many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include putting as many poor black people in prison as possible, regardless of their actual guilt. After all, those are the two paths to fame, fortune, and political power for an ambitious lawyer. I think that the argument is that since the motivations are mercenary and not sadistic, it's ok. Don't hate the player, hate the game, it's the system that incentivizes individual lawyers who pursue wealth and social status to help people of means to get away with crimes. No individual is morally responsible. And then there's this odd corollary where even the mildest token effort to readjust these bad incentives by, say ostracization or employment sanctions by individual firms, is punishing individuals for responding to incentives to do bad and therefore must not be done. So basically a bad system incentivizes bad behavior and that's regrettable but we must never incentivize good behavior because that would be unfair to the individuals behaving badly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I’m not sure the concept defense lawyers support crime makes any sense at all. Good thing nobody has said that
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Also the logic of complaining about punishing bad behaviour in the context of defending the judicial system is loving megalol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Schlitzkrieg Bop posted:There's lots of reasons someone would become a public defender (including putting in time for PSLF or building a resume to become one of those super expensive attorneys in private practice), and more lucrative areas in the private sector than criminal defense work, so I don't think you can just assume someone's motives totally based on that. Ahh yes, the well known public defender to lucrative big law attorney career track. Oh wait that never ever happens and almost everyone willing to take on the hellish life of a public defender does so because he or she is a goddamn saint. Public defenders are heroes and gently caress anyone who says otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I’m not sure the concept defense lawyers support crime makes any sense at all. Not the concept. Private defense lawyers supporting lovely people regardless of their criminality can be judged for such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
Public defenders are in on a money-grubbing racket to uh strategically go six figures in debt then live in poverty for decades to get that debt forgiven and get back to zero, instead of using their intelligence and skills to study for literally any more renumerative career. This is a serious argument and not a pathetically cynical attempt to draw moral equivalence between the people struggling to fight for the downtrodden in an unjust system and the scumbags at the top profiting off this unjust and immoral system 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 19:38
|
|
|
Our legal system is corrupted by money OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think motivation behind an action matters at all? Yes, to me motivations behind an action do not matter when judging an action, because only the action itself affects stuff and should therefore be considered separately. So for a surgeon, cutting people with knives as part of a medical procedure is generally good, regardless of whether the surgeon does it for altruistic motives, monetary gain or for the social prestige. Conversely, I'm fine with judging action I deem harmful, regardless of motivation. So if you are US military, I think that is a harmful action, even if you have a deeply-held belief that your action is actually helping people and causes good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Ahh yes, the well known public defender to lucrative big law attorney career track. Did you just watch the lincoln lawyer an hr ago or something?public defenders are loving garbagemen with suits. The fster they get to the next case the faster the cash rolls in. Get a lawyer dont rely on a shittier public defender to try to get out of pissing in a public park
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
Most people can't afford lawyers
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Most people can't afford lawyers The bail system is massive problem. Paying for a lawyer is much easier when you arent sitting in jail not producing a paycheck
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Ahahahhha what the gently caress really It’s clear to me now that you don’t have the first clue what you are on about. Full time PDs are paid terrible salaries. Often much less than what is typical for a college graduate who did not attend law school. They don’t get paid per case, and they work for organizations like the Legal Aid Society that are not for profit, so there is no profit motive. They do a ton of cases not because that makes the “cash roll in”, but because there aren’t enough of them and so they have to do three, four, or even five hundred cases a year in many places. If that sounds loving miserable to you, I assure you there is a reason. Supplementing the full time PDs, many places also employ garbage lawyers who do get paid by case. These are bottom of the barrel lawyers who suck and couldn’t find any other work, but they aren’t PDs and if PD organizations were funded properly there wouldn’t be any need for such people. Also, research on PDs indicates that they are, in general, very good at their jobs. Significantly better results are typically found with full time PDs than with any other system for indigent counsel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Hey guys look at that sweet sweet indigent defense cash roll inwikipedia posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It’s clear to me now that you don’t have the first clue what you are on about. So while I am wrong about the paid per case thing you basically justified everything else. O you really want to be case no 299 with no incentive for them to give you proper counsel? Your case is going to be a thought between an $1300 paychecm and a steele reserve. When i was under caution for extortion the first thing they tried to do was throw a public defender my way. gently caress that i dropped a 30 to retain a cd lawyer. 3 weeks later dismissed 100%. WAR CRIME GIGOLO fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Jun 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
I'm not sure that's what I'd call a good outcome tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
Randler posted:Yes, to me motivations behind an action do not matter when judging an action, because only the action itself affects stuff and should therefore be considered separately. Bolded the part where you sneaked in a motivation to distinguish surgery from butchery. Also note how you had to include a qualifier: "generally" good, to acknowledge that the exact same action which is good in one circumstance can be bad under other circumstances. Motivation is central to our moral frameworks, it's also how we distinguish an actor giving a Nazi speech in an antiNazi movie from a Nazi giving a Nazi speech in a Nazi film. It's also central to our legal system, it's why you have to prove state of mind to prove most crimes, because the exact same action can be criminal or not depending on someone's state of mind. But sure let's throw out 6000 of legal and ethical thought if a lawyer has a chance to score some green why not
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 20:55
|
|
|
If you can be locked out of receiving representation from a high-powered lawyer because you don't have enough money, then it's only fair that you can be locked out of receiving representation from a high-powered lawyer because you're a huge piece of poo poo, and the lawyer doesn't want to be associated with your negative reputation. Both people can get public defenders. If you're willing to argue that the public defender system is justice for the poor, then it's also got to be justice for the rich. I'm not crying because people think Harvey Weinstein's lawyer is a scumbag for representing him (surprise, he is also a scumbag for other reasons, as well).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Bolded the part where you sneaked in a motivation to distinguish surgery from butchery. Also note how you had to include a qualifier: "generally" good, to acknowledge that the exact same action which is good in one circumstance can be bad under other circumstances. Motivation is central to our moral frameworks, it's also how we distinguish an actor giving a Nazi speech in an antiNazi movie from a Nazi giving a Nazi speech in a Nazi film. I mean I'd personally argue that capability and circumstance rather than motivation are what distinguishes surgery from butchery. You don't get to do surgery just because you're extremely motivated to help someone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:So while I am wrong about the paid per case thing you nasically justigied everything else. O you really want to be case no 299 with no incentive for them to give you proper counsel? Your case is going to be a thought between an $1300 paychecm and a steele reserve. No I want public defenders to be well funded so that that isn't a problem, because people shouldn't get better odds at avoiding our nightmarish justice system if they're rich
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:No I want public defenders to be well funded so that that isn't a problem, because people shouldn't get better odds at avoiding our nightmarish justice system if they're rich The govt should pay legal fees if you are found not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I'd personally argue that capability and circumstance rather than motivation are what distinguishes surgery from butchery. You don't get to do surgery just because you're extremely motivated to help someone. I didn't mean to imply that motivation was the only distinguishing factor but it is among them. You don't get to cut people up for any purpose just because you're a capable surgeon and they're sick, either. Your intent needs to be that what you're doing is in the best interests of the patient. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jun 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't mean to imply that motivation was the only distinguishing factor but it is among them. I mean generally it's more that they consent to it and stuff, people assume the motivation sure but really what matters is that you are capable and the context (they need surgery, they understand and have consented to it, other surgeons judge that you have done it properly if it comes to review). A fairly strict consequentialist view does work and doesn't really come out on the side of the justice system either I don't think. Given that I'd probably criticise it primarily by its outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:So while I am wrong about the paid per case thing you nasically justigied everything else. O you really want to be case no 299 with no incentive for them to give you proper counsel? Your case is going to be a thought between an $1300 paychecm and a steele reserve. Wow it’s almost like public defenders should be paid better
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:The govt should pay legal fees FTFY. it's not like guilt is the only thing to consider. Which is what he wants too essentially, so what are you even arguing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
The answer to the original thread title is a resounding “no,” by the way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean generally it's more that they consent to it and stuff, people assume the motivation sure but really what matters is that you are capable and the context (they need surgery, they understand and have consented to it, other surgeons judge that you have done it properly if it comes to review). The procedures that caused the opioid crisis followed all these rules you've laid down: sick/injured people, consent, following the rules, medical consensus, yet the outcome was very bad because greed permeated everything. OwlFancier posted:A fairly strict consequentialist view does work and doesn't really come out on the side of the justice system either I don't think. Given that I'd probably criticise it primarily by its outcomes. But yes in that case as you point out, the outcome of helping perpetuate a system of special treatment for the rich is clearly bad, so Sullivan can't be justified on consequentialist grounds. Like nothing bad will happen if Weinstein has to get a public defender assigned to him, so Sullivan is obviously not achieving some greater good by defending him instead of some other potential client, in fact it's a greater harm VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Jun 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:FTFY. it's not like guilt is the only thing to consider. Which is what he wants too essentially, so what are you even arguing? Are you saying we should pay the fees of a murderer who gets convicted thats a bit hosed. Once theyre sitting in the slammer convicted why is it the govts business to pay for their legal fees if theyre convicted guilty
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:22 |
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:you nasically justigied everything else. .
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:15
|
|
