|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted: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 Even the guilty have the right to a criminal defense. The costs of prosecution and receiving a fair defense should not factor into the punishments for crimes, that's absurd. Not to mention absurdly abusable. Everyone should get a properly funded public defender. The rich shouldn't get special treatment.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:The govt should pay legal fees if you are found not guilty. Or, we could just make lawyers civil servants instead of having different levels of representation based on wealth
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The answer to the original thread title is a resounding “no,” by the way. Man you are just chock full of bad opinions
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
should we judge doctors for their patients?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The answer to the original thread title is a resounding “no,” by the way. yeah, its not like the rich can be held accountable for their choices
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:46
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:should we judge doctors for their patients? Here again it is useful to distinguish some doctors from others.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted: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 Should the prosecution not got paid if the verdict is not guilty too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
Booourns posted:Should the prosecution not got paid if the verdict is not guilty too? Speaking of prosecutors, have we dipped our toes in their morally nebulous pool yet? Prosecutors have basically chosen the police as their clients, and having the highest conviction rate possible is a career goal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Speaking of prosecutors, have we dipped our toes in their morally nebulous pool yet? Which is probably the #1 reason not to get into the habit of shaming criminal defense lawyers for doing their job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Which is probably the #1 reason not to get into the habit of shaming criminal defense lawyers for doing their job. CD LAWYERS are saints sent from god himself to protect humans
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Which is probably the #1 reason not to get into the habit of shaming criminal defense lawyers for doing their job. I mean so far that's not what's happening, nobody is shaming defense lawyers as a whole
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Which is probably the #1 reason not to get into the habit of shaming criminal defense lawyers for doing their job. You are conflating groups that others are explicitly distinguishing and it seems you might be a bit confused.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Which is probably the #1 reason not to get into the habit of shaming criminal defense lawyers for doing their job. Nobody is doing that because defending any client who walks through the door is not a private attorney's job (it is a public defender's job). Private attorneys can turn down clients for any reason they wish (short of illegal discrimination under federal law), for example they can turn a client down for something like not having enough money. If it is cool and good to turn someone down for being poor then clearly we can judge someone who does that by the clients they do choose to represent. E: unless we want to make the argument that being poor is worse than being a rapist VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jun 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
In Australia, NZ, the UK and some other Commonwealth nations barristers operate under a cab rank rule where they are expected to take work offered to them if in their field of expertise and at usual rates. I don't suppose any US states have something similar for trial attorneys?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
Lol Australia has courts? That must be hilarious. Do they dress up in a wig and robes and call each other mate or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
Neurosis posted:In Australia, NZ, the UK and some other Commonwealth nations barristers operate under a cab rank rule where they are expected to take work offered to them if in their field of expertise and at usual rates. I don't suppose any US states have something similar for trial attorneys? Sometimes dudes in really out of the way areas get appointed as defense counsel even though they’re previously only done like, divorces and the occasional slip and fall. Those guys tend to suck. But other than that no. We also don’t have the barrister/solicitor split. Any us layer can appear in court, though many rarely do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Or, we could just make lawyers civil servants instead of having different levels of representation based on wealth This is pretty much the crux of the matter. Edit: actually I would go one step further and say we should be questioning the entire adversarial method of law and order entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 05:47
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Or, we could just make lawyers civil servants instead of having different levels of representation based on wealth If the lawyers do something nice like waving the fee if they don't win they'll just up the cost to offset it, "greedily sucking up tax payer money while denying the victims justice". It - it doesn't really seem like a program that'd survive long, especially since the rich would benefit far less than everyone else. Yeah, definitely just go for the 'ONLY public defenders for all' option, with major anti-corruption enforcement so rich client don't convince public defenders to spend all their efforts on them while just winging it for the rest. At least that way, the rich have to care that the system is functional, if only because their garbage progeny will definitely need a defense lawyer at some point. Obviously the next part is dealing with prosecutors (or the prosecution system in general), who people have already pointed out too are at the very least on morally fraught ground. Not sure what the solution is for breaking police-prosecution collusion? Rotating positions? Meaning they're all just public lawyers, who rotate between prosecution and defense? It'd suck for the people who don't want to send people to jail, but it'd help create a divide between cops and prosecutors if the latter was helping "thugs" go free half the time. That's operating within the adversarial system, which as Lightning Knight points out, you don't actually have to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 05:51
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Lol Australia has courts? That must be hilarious. Do they dress up in a wig and robes and call each other mate or whatever Robes in criminal trials and the High Court. Wigs in some states and the High Court but most have abolished them. I don't mind the robes because it makes you feel like a wizard to get up in a robe say a bunch of stuff in Latin then have a person disappear. The correct argot for referring to each other is 'my learned friend' which sounds super passive aggressive no matter how many times you hear it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 06:12
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Lol Australia has courts? That must be hilarious. Do they dress up in a wig and robes and call each other mate or whatever That's not a brief, this is a brief
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is pretty much the crux of the matter. Whoa now next you're going to say our legal system exists to dehumanize and further disenfranchise the poor and that we should change that too
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 06:18
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Whoa now next you're going to say our legal system exists to dehumanize and further disenfranchise the poor and that we should change that too but... but my law & order reruns... 
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:but... but my law & order reruns... We'll keep those Badum bababada daaaaaaaa daaaadum Dun dun dun dun dundunnnnn
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is pretty much the crux of the matter. Honest question- what does a non-adversarial legal system look like without devolving into complete tyranny or mob rule?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 08:46
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Honest question- what does a non-adversarial legal system look like without devolving into complete tyranny or mob rule? Uh... this isn't like, a hypothetical thing. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/civil-law/some-legal-system-adversarial-and-some-non-adversarial-civil-law-essay.php Adversarial law is, of course, a product of British colonial expansion. It's not the only law system humans have ever used. http://www.wupr.org/2014/10/27/when-our-adversarial-justice-system-fails/ I'm not gonna claim to have any kind of authoritative, professional Law Opinions, but "the adversarial system has extreme, core problems" is not some kind of crazy town anarchist take that will lead to Mad Max.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 10:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Uh... this isn't like, a hypothetical thing. I don't know as that inquisitorial legal systems really solve the main problems. The only change is that now the judges, a lot of whom already trip on their own power, now get to control criminal investigations and get more evidence that they've already drawn biased conclusions for. Our legal system is fundamentally hosed up mainly because our focus is on petty revenge and subjugation of the lower class. That's not a philosophical issue with adversarial legal systems rather our specific penal codes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Our legal system is fundamentally hosed up mainly because our focus is on petty revenge and subjugation of the lower class. That's not a philosophical issue with adversarial legal systems rather our specific penal codes. That and the fact that positions of authority in general have virtually always attracted power-hungry psychopaths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
How would you jugde a lawyer that usually takes work from regular middle class people to sue other middle class people. Like someone who is an expert on disputes between neighbours or divorce attorney`s ? Is that more or less ok?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:How would you jugde a lawyer that usually takes work from regular middle class people to sue other middle class people. Like someone who is an expert on disputes between neighbours or divorce attorney`s ? They fill a niche. You know civil standbys are a helluva benefit to women divorcing who dont feel comfortble in the presence of their fellow divorcee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:I don't know as that inquisitorial legal systems really solve the main problems. The only change is that now the judges, a lot of whom already trip on their own power, now get to control criminal investigations and get more evidence that they've already drawn biased conclusions for. Yeah, "let's abolish the adversarial prosecution-defense structure in favor of the judge doing everything and having even more power" is not an obviously superior system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Lol Australia has courts? That must be hilarious. Do they dress up in a wig and robes and call each other mate or whatever
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Yeah, "let's abolish the adversarial prosecution-defense structure in favor of the judge doing everything and having even more power" is not an obviously superior system. This was the system in Chile for a long time and (surprise) defendants who weren't connected were generally turbo hosed instead of just regular hosed. Adversarial legalism is probably the best of the worst ways (ie: all the rest of the ways) to conduct criminal trials.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Yeah, an inquisitorial system removes the one mechanism we've settled on to restrain the state from illegally gathering evidence, so good luck with that.Nevvy Z posted:Even the guilty have the right to a criminal defense. The costs of prosecution and receiving a fair defense should not factor into the punishments for crimes, that's absurd. Not to mention absurdly abusable. VitalSigns posted:Nobody is doing that because defending any client who walks through the door is not a private attorney's job (it is a public defender's job).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 16:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm not really clear on what your overarching philosophy is here. Are people above a certain income bracket not entitled to a presumption of innocence? Because "lawyers who defend rich people are scum, but PDs are saints" seems to assume that. Yes they are entitled to a legal presumption of innocence, but I don't see how not getting an expensive attorney denies them that. Unless your argument is that being unable to afford an attorney equals a presumption of guilt. There is a colorable argument that this is how our legal system indeed functions, but that is not an argument for a system of special treatment for the rich. (Well not to me, your philosophy is obviously different, since I have yet to see an extrajudicial execution that you won't defend by presuming that the victim must have been guilty of something) Thinking about this more, you might be confused about the difference between a legal presumption of innocence in a courtroom, and social consequences for one's actions. If a bunch of altar boys report that a priest is raping them he is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence but that does not mean we send those boys back into his care unless and until he's charged and convicted (tbf the Catholic Church does disagree with me on this point and is in fact very interested in a having system that protects abusers) Dead Reckoning posted:Do you think that the government prosecuting you also being allowed to choose who defends you might present some problems or conflicts of interest? Since that has how the public defender system works, this would be an argument for requiring any defense lawyer to defend any client who walks in their door, for free or for a standard fee paid by the government. It certainly isn't an argument for allowing only the rich to choose who defends them. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you think that the government prosecuting you also being allowed to choose who defends you might present some problems or conflicts of interest? If that was what anyone was suggesting it might be a problem but it seems to be something you made up based on your not understanding or on a desire to invent problems. "If i just call it all 'the government' then everyone forgets that it is made up of entities that are often completely separated." VitalSigns posted:Thinking about this more, you might be confused about the difference between a legal presumption of innocence in a courtroom, and social consequences for one's actions I dunno about you but I'm getting real tired of people who are always "confused but making the worst possible assumptions" as it seems to be the same people over and over and they often seem confused about the same things again and again. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:If that was what anyone was suggesting it might be a problem but it seems to be something you made up based on your not understanding or on a desire to invent problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 17:29
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your suggestion was light on details, so you can't really criticize people for making assumptions about how it would work in practice. If everyone gets a public defender, how are they assigned? Does the defendant have any choice about who represents them? What happens when the number of cases exceeds local or global capacity? Can a person pay for other aspects of their legal defense, like specialists or experts to advise their appointed attorney? Are you ok with how the public defender system works now? If so, then what's the problem. Are you ok with people being denied specialists or experts if they can't pay? If so, then what's the problem. There's a fundamental contradiction in your argument, you can't both argue that private representation and expert advice is a basic legal right without which a fair trial is impossible, and then also be okay with denying that right based on wealth. That makes no sense. I mean you can argue that, you just have to be okay with the only resolution to that contradiction which is that poor people have no right to a fair trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:They fill a niche. You know civil standbys are a helluva benefit to women divorcing who dont feel comfortble in the presence of their fellow divorcee. But sometimes they help a vindictive and abusive husband gently caress over their terrified ex-wifes. So it`s impossible to say generally that divorce lawyers are good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Baudolino posted:But sometimes they help a vindictive and abusive husband gently caress over their terrified ex-wifes. So it`s impossible to say generally that divorce lawyers are good or bad. Or maybe they aren’t either good or bad because lawyers are not responsible for what their clients do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:26 |
|
|
Won't someone think of the poor oppressed lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 19:07
|
|
