Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

This is the same guy who basically tried to get dnd to say it was okay to not pay people fairly so I feel like he's just an rear end in a top hat

# ¿ Jun 8, 2019 19:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 01:45

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

The us system being bad doesn't mean you should replace it with something absurdly worse.

If no one respectable can ever defend any client accused of a serious crime then you just have a kangaroo court. Harvey Weinstein is pretty drat clearly guilty, he should go to jail after a totally real trial that finds that, you shouldn't need a kangaroo joke trial for people that are actually clearly guilty. Not defending people accused of serious crimes is going to hurt poorer people way more than it'll hurt rich people.

That's why everyone would get the exact same service and level of representation oocc you dweeb

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

People not having access to private lawyers is not an argument against a system being not a kangaroo court!

Also is the concept is that someone who defends pedophiles and rapists in court is as bad as a pedophile or rapist then why are public defenders immune? They took the job knowing they'd be defending pedophiles too.

They don't choose to defend awful people for a huge paycheck, they choose to help the poorest people because everyone deserves representation, shut the gently caress up with this "well you live in society" poo poo

# ¿ Jun 8, 2019 19:27

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Most people can't afford lawyers

# ¿ Jun 9, 2019 20:19

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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.

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%.

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: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Lightning Knight posted:

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.

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: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

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

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Cockmaster posted:

Exactly. To say that private defense attorneys ought to reject Weinstein (or anyone else) on the grounds of moral outrage over the alleged crime is to declare him guilty without a trial.

No it's not

# ¿ Jun 14, 2019 16:49

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

wateroverfire posted:

Well one thing that has come up in this thread repeatedly is that defendents who have the financial means to pay for their own lawyers are not able to utilize the PD system even if they wanted to so that might color peoples' behavior somewhat.

And that's why people have said the PD system should be universal, also the fact that there's a parallel track by which the rich can avoid justice is still loving horrific

# ¿ Jun 14, 2019 16:50

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

blarzgh posted:

Probably the simplest way to explain it is this:

- Whatever a defendant decides to spend in money, the prosecution has to respond with in time and manpower. The prosecution will never stop trying to convict them, so they have to continue to add resources to match the resources expended by the defense. There will always be diminishing returns; the jury will probably check out by the 13th expert, but if you've got 13 experts, and the other side only has 3, you've put them at a disadvantage.

- Why do the ultra rich buy a 100 foot yacht when a 30 foot yacht will do? If you can afford it, why not?

Representation is not like installing an air conditioner. You cannot predict, no matter how clear the facts are, the outcome. Even doctors will tell you that a certain surgery, done perfectly, only has an X% success rate or whatever. Now imagine if Doctors who were trying to remove an appendix had to try to do it while fighting another Doctor who's been hired by the appendix to keep it from being removed. Also, there are 12 non-doctors in the viewing area deciding which Doctor wins, lol. If I told you that spending another million dollars might raise that success rate by .01%, you and I would have to say, "guess not." But Bill Gates would just be like, "ok, whatevs."

So what you're saying is having more money to spend on a legal defense gives you a better shot against the government than not having money

# ¿ Jun 14, 2019 16:51

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

blarzgh posted:

I'm saying it might, so long as the prosecution doesn't respond with equal, or greater resources. And in its own way, its a form of justice. If some super rich rear end in a top hat spends way too much on their legal defense, then its a net multi-million dollar loss to them on top of whatever their punishment ends up being.

And when they get off on crimes well shucks guess they just literally bought their way out of being punished thems the breaks

# ¿ Jun 14, 2019 17:08

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Dead Reckoning posted:

You can claim that the legal system is wrong and ought to change to match the idealized system you have come up with in your head. But you need to be prepared to be specific about your proposed system and to deal with criticism of its flaws.

You cannot argue that someone in the here-and-now is wrong for failing to take what would be the most moral course of action in the idealized system you have come up with in your head, because that's insane.

There is no individual defendant who can match the resources of the US Attorneys' Offices and Federal Law Enforcement. Spending more money on a defense just encourages them to increase the resources arrayed against you. People frequently spend money chasing illusory or marginal benefits.

Cool and if I'm poor I can't even try and will get steamrolled, but I guess rich people losing occasionally makes that okay

# ¿ Jun 15, 2019 04:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 14, 2024 01:45

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Woozy posted:

The lawyer is one the setting the fee, you dipshit, not Weinstein. And if his fee has to account for the wrath of the mob then he may as well only represent the richest clients he can get. I don't give a gently caress who you criticize, my whole point is that it's worthless. Your condemnation is expedient and self-promotional, and your fantasy is that it matters. That's what I dispute, the delusion that shame can be leveraged for social good in lieu of politics. Your critique of "greedy lawyers" convinces everyone else that they are a necessity. How could they be anything but in a world populated by you and your strawmen?

I don't give a poo poo says man who clearly gives a big poo poo, going by his righteous fury over people doing something he definitely isn't mad about but thinks is a waste of time and also they're all lying

# ¿ Jun 15, 2019 04:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Should We Judge Lawyers for Their Clients?