|
Hieronymous Alloy posted: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." edit: Like your answer could easily be "The public service that is responsible for representing people who can't otherwise get representation will pick up the slack", but I sense that's not your answer. twodot fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jun 14, 2019 |
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
twodot posted:Public defenders do not possess these bounds. If you actually believe there is a real need for everyone to have legal representation, how can an ability to pay be a factor in determining clients? How can ANYTHING be a factor in determining clients? After all you and I both agree everyone needs to have legal representation. We can't judge Weinstein's attorneys in a hypothetical future world where Weinstein has access to public defenders due to a change in law. He needs an attorney now, not after the eschaton. You're shifting back and forth between the present (judging Weinstein's attorneys now) and a hypothetical future state where there's been a change in law and Weinstein has access to appointed counsel. He doesn't currently have that access so it's irrelevant whether or not he should. Horrible person needs attorney Horrible person cannot have an attorney appointed because he's too wealthy Horrible person hires attorney The hired attorney isn't culpable because he's fulfilling a societally necessary task. If in ten years the law changes and Horrible Person can get an attorney appointed, the hired attorney's task is no longer societally necessary in the same way, maybe the calculation changes. That's a hypothetical future though not present reality. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:11
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We can't judge Weinstein's attorneys in a hypothetical future world where Weinstein has access to public defenders due to a change in law. He needs an attorney now, not after the eschaton. edit: I guess unnecessary followup, if he were forced to represent himself, do you think he would have a trivial appeal option such that the state would choose not to do that in the future?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:13
|
|
|
It is absolutely not a hypothetical to suppose currently existing lawyers could decline to represent a person. That is an allowed action. I agree it's rare enough that I'm not aware of existing examples, but our system does have a backup plan for people who are unable to hire representation, and it is to have representation appointed to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Suppose in our current reality, all private lawyers refused to represent him. In that reality do you think he would be appointed a lawyer or do you think the state would force him to represent himself? It's a nonsensical supposition. He has money, so someone will represent him. That someone might be a horrible person for all sorts of reasons (greedy, whatever else) but they aren't horrible just by the fact of representation. Otherwise though I've already answered. The judge wouldn't believe he'd tried hard enough to find counsel and would probably just throw him in contempt and charge him progressive fines until he found counsel. Theoretically maybe conclude he'd waived his right to counsel by not trying hard enough? I dunno, it's a garbage in -> garbage out hypothetical that relies on conditions contrary to fact. What if the moon WAS made of cheese? Then what? Huh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:It's a nonsensical supposition. He has money, so someone will represent him. That someone might be a horrible person for all sorts of reasons (greedy, whatever else) but they aren't horrible just by the fact of representation. edit: Oh wow wait!! quote:Otherwise though I've already answered. The judge wouldn't believe he'd tried hard enough to find counsel and would probably just throw him in contempt and charge him progressive fines until he found counsel. twodot fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah my proposition is that the person who wants to represent horrible people is also pretty bad. Like a bunch of other people said "That person is horrible no thanks", and then another person said "That person is horrible, but I love money" they are also not good. Every criminal defense lawyer definitionally wants to represent horrible people, and most of them are public defenders at some point in their career. Your whole structure here seems to just be invoking some kind of ritual kabuki theater self abasement process where every attorney has to ritually pronounce "I decline!" then one of them gets appointed and. . . charges his or her fees anyway? . . .like what matters is that a judge has ritually waved his gavel over the representation like the pope blessing an infant or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:26
|
|
|
No gently caress this whole conversation, answer this: Oh wow wait!! quote:Otherwise though I've already answered. The judge wouldn't believe he'd tried hard enough to find counsel and would probably just throw him in contempt and charge him progressive fines until he found counsel.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:29
|
|
|
twodot posted:No gently caress this whole conversation, answer this: Not what I said even remotely. (Pro tip: if you have to restate the other guy's post as "oh wait you think X", x is never what they think. They told you what they think, if you want to respond to it, use quotes.)You asked what I thought a judge would probably do, not what I thought a judge *should* do. Two different questions. I don't think much of anything about the current legal system is proper or appropriate. Beside the point. The question is the morality of individual actors within the system we have -- can we judge individual attorneys working in the current broken system. Can we judge Weinstein's attorneys today for representing him today. How to fix or remedy or replace that current broken system is separate question. Diagnosing and remedying systemic issues is a distinct problem from the individual morality of individual actors in that broken system. Individual actors in a broken system are always going to do things that appear horrible, they're acting within horrible constraints. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:<absurd words>
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:You think the proper remedy to a person who can't find private representation is to hold them in contempt indefinitely until they manage to find another monster that wants to be employed by a monster? Ok cool. No, HA doesn't. Didn't say so either. I guess you're pretty much conceding every position or idea you've posted about for your last 50 posts itt by virtue of being reduced to counterfactually misrepresenting the positions of the posters who have engaged with you. I won't, you're just a nutcase and your position is worthless to the topic of the thread. I can't understand why anyone would spend time on you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:36
|
|
|
Ffs, y'all making the most obtuse slippery slopes possible. People who profit off unjust systems are deserving of social ridicule. The American legal system is a corrupt institution designed to oppress the lower class. Those who profit off entrenching it deserve judgement. Lawyers who try their best to help victims of this system navigate the corruption are worthy of praise. Lawyers who aid the wealthy in circumventing justice deserve derision. Context here loving matters. 80 women claim to have been personally sexually assaulted by Weinstein. Weinstein is pleading not guilty. What the actual gently caress is the defense here? This isn't one or two women levying charges, it's 80. So the argument being presented must either be that 80 private individuals, all of whom are a lower social status than Weinstein, are committing perjury OR they are telling the truth but we shouldn't consider this rape. Either way, in defending Weinstein you are entrenching injustice- by discrediting the very notion of witness testimony or redefining laws so they don't apply to the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:39
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:No, HA doesn't. Didn't say so either. quote:Otherwise though I've already answered. The judge wouldn't believe he'd tried hard enough to find counsel and would probably just throw him in contempt and charge him progressive fines until he found counsel. edit: Like I'm out here saying even extremely awful people need representation, and other people are saying "Whelp if you're rich and can't secure representation, I guess a judge will just hold you in permanent contempt of court, that is more just than appointing them a lawyer" twodot fucked around with this message at 07:43 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
twodot posted:Answer the question, assume in our existing system, a client able to purchase a legal defense is unable to secure private representation, should they be held indefinitely in contempt, should they be appointed legal representation, or some other strategy I haven't imagined? is this the part of the conversation where you just start shouting demands at the sky? or do you start typing in all caps next? I'm kinda lost here. I've answered all those questions repeatedly above. hit the little question mark by my avatar. (see, e.g., https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3891388&userid=146846#post495887391 ) The answer to your hypothetical is completely irrelevant though because it's a hypothetical contrary to fact. I'm unaware of a single instance where any wealthy client was unable to hire an attorney due to social shaming or shunning. I mean, do your own research. We've got a long legal history in the US, if you can find an example where it's actually happened then ok it might be worth discussing, if you can't it's a what-if-pigs-could-fly irrelevancy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The answer to your hypothetical is completely irrelevant though because it's a hypothetical contrary to fact. I'm unaware of a single instance where any wealthy client was unable to hire an attorney due to social shaming or shunning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Like you are 100% right, and my crusade to shame lawyers will never produce any results. Why are you posting in this thread?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok I will take your stance as given, shaming lawyers can never matter. How do you argue shaming lawyers is bad? I think I addressed that already also. 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. It's, like, a mean thing to say so shouldn't say it? If you want to shun and criticize rich lawyers shun and criticize because they're rich and charge high fees, not because they're representing bad people. Being rich might be inherently evil; being a criminal defense attorney isn't. All criminal defense attorneys represent horrible people because horrible people are criminals and vice versa. If representing horrible people is shameful then so is being any kind of criminal defense attorney. If you're shaming people for that you're shaming them for providing a public service and that's wrong. If you want to shame them for being *rich* attorneys sure. ANy given attorney might be a horrible person for all sorts of reasons. But not for the reason that they represent horrible people. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 07:51 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:48
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think I addressed that already also.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:But if being mean never matters then why care? Like I think my opinion matters, but if your argument is my opinion can't possibly matter why are we having this discussion? This thread shouldn't be any different from flat earthers as far as I can tell from you. When I see people getting very upset over things they clearly don't understand I have an urge to try to educate and help them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:When I see people getting very upset over things they clearly don't understand I have an urge to try to educate and help them. edit: Hint: my explanation is that behaving badly is worse than being ignorant. edit2: I guess this might be necessary, but if your explanation is "You aren't behaving badly, but I'm still bothered by ignorance for no reason that has material impact on the world" you are part of the problem. twodot fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 07:53
|
|
|
MixMastaTJ posted:Ffs, y'all making the most obtuse slippery slopes possible. People who profit off unjust systems are deserving of social ridicule. The American legal system is a corrupt institution designed to oppress the lower class. Those who profit off entrenching it deserve judgement. No, the argument is that the state needs to actually prove this, and follow the rules in doing so. I realize this sounds crazy but the role of an attorney is not actually to provide moral vindication for the client. Are you thinking of a publicist? Because I would kill for that gig in your idiotic fantasy where Weinstein is railroaded and saddled with incompetent representation, because that's exactly the same as not being convicted at all as far as public interest is concerned.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 08:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok I will take your stance as given, shaming lawyers can never matter. How do you argue shaming lawyers is bad? This discussion seems to have hit a dead end because you're just continually misstating my points but one more error here: I didn't say shaming lawyers "can never matter". I said it wouldn't achieve the goal you desire it to (reforming the legal system, denying Weinstein privately funded representation. etc). What the "bad people shouldn't have lawyers" narrative you're pushing *can* do though is spread a lot of misinformation about the legal system, which can lead voters to do stupid poo poo like defunding public criminal defense because a Good Lawyer wouldn't represent Bad People and they're just in it for the money, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:\What the "bad people shouldn't have lawyers" narrative you're pushing edit: And for extra bonus I have said multiple times I don't believe this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:I am not pushing this narrative you have made this up. You might think you aren't, but it's at the end of the road you're following.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 08:19
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:You might think you aren't, but it's at the end of the road you're following.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
Like how in the world do I need to post so often that, anytime someone's access to representation is threatened we can just repair that by giving them access to public defenders? edit: Or wait, didn't you tell me it's functionally impossible to harm a rich person's access to representation such that we shouldn't even have this conversation? Turns out you did! Hieronymous Alloy posted:He has money, so someone will represent him. twodot fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait. Should the doctor not treat any wealthy person, or only wealthy people who have done specifically horrible things? You could pick targets but yes, private medical practice is bad and should be scrapped and replaced by exclusively universal service.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 09:13
|
|
|
Whitlam posted: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. No I think Sullivan is wealthy, if you can show that he is too poor to refuse Weinstein I would consider that an acceptable reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 11:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Wait. Should the doctor not treat any wealthy person, or only wealthy people who have done specifically horrible things? Hieronymous Alloy posted:
Ok if your position is poor people are inherently less deserving of medical care than wealthy rapists, then wow we just disagree on morality. I can't objectively prove my morality is correct, but Christ. Hieronymous Alloy posted:We can't judge Weinstein's attorneys in a hypothetical future world where Weinstein has access to public defenders due to a change in law. He needs an attorney now, not after the eschaton. This is irrelevant according to you because you have already assured me it is impossible for Weinstein to be unable to obtain private representation regardless of whether I judge his lawyers or not. Therefore there's no problem if I judge his lawyers VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 11:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I think Sullivan is wealthy, if you can show that he is too poor to refuse Weinstein I would consider that an acceptable reason. So your argument has now shifted to lawyers should be means tested before we're allowed to forgive/judge them for taking on particular clients? Should Cameron Todd Willingham's lawyers have been judged for taking him on as a client? I mean, dude was accused, found guilty of, and executed for killing his kids, that's a pretty despicable act, right? Surely we can judge that guy's lawyers. Except lol whoops no he probably didn't. See, if your argument is that Weinstein's lawyers should all be judged forever barring a public defender (which, it's been established, he literally cannot get), fine. I still think you're wrong, but fine. If your argument is all criminal lawyers should be judged forever, based on their client list, you're arguing that anyone charged with a crime is guilty and should be judged without trial, and the professional organisation designed to give a fair hearing and hold the prosecution to a high standard should just go home. Personally I think that's pretty hosed up but IANAL so what would I know. If your argument is that all criminal lawyers should be public defenders, then hoo boy have I got some stories to tell you from countries where the prosecution and defence both work for the government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Oh please. I've already been over the "IF YOUR POSITION IS X" bullshit. Yes, obviously we should move to a free universal health care system. Hell, JK rowling lives in one, that was part of why I picked her for the example. The question wasn't about payment at all, it was about whether or not being rich by itself made you evil enough to be refused care, or if there was some other additional factor. I didn't mention payment at all, you added that in yourself. Folks ITT learn how to read the arguments people actually type out twodot posted:Like how in the world do I need to post so often that, anytime someone's access to representation is threatened we can just repair that by giving them access to public defenders? Not the problem or the issue I'm talking about. Here's the thing. Public defender budgets are always threatened, and public defenders routinely get attacked for defending particularly horrible criminals. This is not hypothetical but something that routinely happens in political campaigns for example - politicians getting attacked for prior criminal defense work. Or even for adequately funding public defender departments -- "why are you wasting money on those criminals" etc. That narrative -- that defending criminals is Just Bad because Criminals Are Bad -- hurts the careers of public defenders. It makes people who have political aspirations avoid becoming public defenders. It prevents public defender departments from being adequately funded. It doesn't hurt any one individual wealthy criminal defendant -- they can always afford to hire an attorney and someone will take their money -- but it hurts the people who need public defenders and it hurts lawyers generally and stigmatizes criminal defense work of all kind (private and public). Whether you want it to or not, your " defense attorneys should shun Weinstein because he is both Rich and Bad" argument leads necessarily into "bad people don't deserve defense attorneys" and that narrative is harmful to the defense bar generally and society generally. It's not particularly harmful to Weinstein individually or to other criminals in his economic class generally, just to everyone else. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 12:23
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:If your argument is that all criminal lawyers should be public defenders, then hoo boy have I got some stories to tell you from countries where the prosecution and defence both work for the government. Like the rest you are right back to "Justice for the rich. Don't Rock the boat."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Like the rest you are right back to "Justice for the rich. Don't Rock the boat." You got me. There are literally no good arguments against governments running the defence and the prosecution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 12:57
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:You got me. There are literally no good arguments against governments running the defence and the prosecution. Quoting a list on wikipedia isn't an argument, except on youtube and 4chan infographics. North Korea also has a loving legislative body, better not have any either. Also elections. I mean, if theirs are rigged that obviously means that elections lead to rigging and authoritarianism, right? Best discard that poo poo and just have a blueblood and his family run things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 13:18
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:So your argument has now shifted to lawyers should be means tested before we're allowed to forgive/judge them for taking on particular clients? No, my argument has always been that considering the totality if the circumstances, context, and likely motive, that Sullivan is bad and should be judged as such. Someone acting under other circumstances, with other motives, I would judge differently. E: I am surprised the idea of "means-testing" our moral judgments is even controversial. I would also judge the morality of a poor person who steals a loaf of bread differently than i would a rich person who steals a loaf of bread. Does that shock you? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 13:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No, my argument has always been that considering the totality if the circumstances, context, and likely motive, that Sullivan is bad and should be judged as such. How many of those circumstances do you actually *know* and how many are assumed ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:How many of those circumstances do you actually *know* and how many are assumed ? Well if I am judging based on erroneous information then that would be a good argument that I should revise my judgment! If you want to make the case that Sullivan's motives are secretly noble, or that he is coerced into being Weinstein's lawyer because of dire economic conditions, go ahead I will consider what you have to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 13:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Oh please. I've already been over the "IF YOUR POSITION IS X" bullshit. Oh ok, then no I don't think so, but I'm willing to entertain an argument that I should think so, the rich are pretty bad so go ahead and try to convince me you might succeed!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh ok, then no I don't think so, but I'm willing to entertain an argument that I should think so, the rich are pretty bad so go ahead and try to convince me you might succeed! 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. A) If he doesn't deserve an attorney because he's rich, then Rowling doesn't deserve a doctor because she's rich. B) If he doesn't deserve an attorney because he's Bad, then no criminal defendant does, they're pretty universally bad people. C) If the argument is "he shouldn't be able hire an attorney but should have one appointed" he can't have one appointed so that's not relevant to judging Sullivan in the present, it's only an argument in a hypothetical alternate or future reality. "He shouldn't be able to hire an attorney" is equivalent to "he should not be allowed an attorney" in the present reality. If the argument is "He should not be able to hire an attorney because he is both Rich AND Bad" then see (C). I mean if people want to just rig up guillotines ok but that's not got all that much to do with Sullivan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:12 |
|
|
Edit- this part is not responsive to the immediately above as i had not yet read it. Intent and outcomes both matter. They matter in criminal law and they matter here. It's real dumb how DR keeps trying to make it one or the other but useful for framing where you are wrong here HA. Just because someone has to do a job, doesn't mean I'm not concerned or creeped out by the intent of folks who are way to eager to do gross bad jobs. Someone has to change old man diapers but that doesn't mean I won't judge people who are too eager to be involved in that process. Or who only will do it for the very wealthy. Hieronymous Alloy posted:C) If the argument is "he shouldn't be able hire an attorney but should have one appointed" he can't have one appointed so that's not relevant to judging Sullivan in the present, it's only an argument in a hypothetical alternate or future reality. "He shouldn't be able to hire an attorney" is equivalent to "he should not be allowed an attorney" in the present reality. 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. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Rowling doesn't deserve a doctor because she's rich. This is framing the argument wrong. The argument is: 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 14:10 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 14:05
|
|