Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Doktor Avalanche
Dec 30, 2008

ToxicSlurpee posted:

Actually it kind of is. If you can swing public opinion heavily against somebody because they defended a bad person then you end up with public optics being part of the consideration to defend somebody. For due process to function properly there needs to be a no exceptions, ever clause in it. That means even the worst people get to have lawyers, end of story, and we shouldn't judge somebody for defending a bad person. The reason for this is not to defend bad people but rather to defend not bad people. As soon as you make an exception you're pretty much guaranteed to have some poo poo nugget somewhere stuffing a crowbar in the exception and prying it open as far as they possibly can.

Which is, incidentally, part of why lawyers have such a lovely reputation. The less scrupulous ones keep looking for those exceptions while holding a crowbar.

Of course if the lawyer in question is a lovely person outside of their lawyering then fine, go ahead and judge them to hell and back for that. No problem there.

nobody here is booing due process
the math is simple - did this guy have a legal obligation to take the case? no? that's it, we can judge them.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Doktor Avalanche
Dec 30, 2008

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

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?

except people have taken pains to explicitly not make that concept, dumbass

Doktor Avalanche
Dec 30, 2008

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

Doktor Avalanche
Dec 30, 2008

congrats on another stellar thread, wateroverfire
can't wait for the next installment of this "ethics vs money" series

Doktor Avalanche
Dec 30, 2008

Unoriginal Name posted:

making moral judgements doesnt negate the right to a public defender you stupid bastard

200 new posts because you dense fucks cant separate morality and right to counsel
16 pages of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUaHIFpNMcI

Doktor Avalanche
Dec 30, 2008

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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Doktor Avalanche
Dec 30, 2008

"did you know this guy did his what he was supposed to do a lot of times?????? check and mate, system fine :smug:"

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply