|
What if you learned that hiring a private attorney versus using a public defender didn't materially change the outcome for a defendant? And also, what if you learned that people who had enough money to hire a private criminal defense attorney were not eligible for the public defender, thus forced to spend their own money? Would that change your opinion of the legal system?
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Prove it. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=772 https://imgur.com/nAbeYSL https://imgur.com/I0QvWaF (Can't get images to post?) In fact, PD's are slightly better at getting plea deals, slightly better at getting not-guiltys and significantly better at getting reduced sentences than private attorneys are. I think the general public only gets the snippet of the high-profile cases, and tends to feel like, "well, because I watched this rich guy get off on a technicality" then paying more money must mean getting a better result at trial, i.e. OJ. In reality, the thing people forget about a case like OJ's is that for every penny of work the high powered defense team spent on the case, the Prosecution had to put an equivalent resource into countering that work. Spending more money on your defense just makes the prosecution spend more time on your prosecution - the ratio trends 1 to 1. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am aware of this, I didn't say that rich people can get PDs if they don't feel like spending money. I said that if a rich person were unable to hire a lawyer because no one would voluntarily represent them, and the state said "well you aren't poor so oh well" and forced them to defend themselves pro se, that it seems to me like they would have a sixth amendment case against the state. Its a fun hypothetical, but a functional impossibility. There are tens of thousands of private criminal defense attorneys in every state, and so far society hasn't succeeded yet in shaming them all into refusing to represent people who are likely guilty.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
twodot posted:presumably people who think shaming the lawyers of rich horrible monsters is bad think it is bad for a reason and I'm not grasping it. Everyone deserves representation, and its immoral, short-sighted, and childish to chide or diminish the work that people do on behalf of anyone who's entitled to that representation. blarzgh posted:Broadly, you have to remember that the Lawyer's duty is not only to the client, to give them the best possible representation, but the lawyer's duty is also to the public at large, to make the State do its job before taking away the freedom of its citizens. Its not up to the lawyer (edit: and not the public at large, either) to decide "how much" representation people need - it is up to defense attorneys to keep the all-powerful government in check.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 20:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053204?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents That's not actually what it says. It says that not being able to post a bond generally results in more time spent in prison later. Three big problems with this study: 1. Burglary/larceny cases only. Not alot of rich people stealing TVs for your sample. 2. Its from 1978 3. From the abstract:" Most of this effect could be explained by the low-income defendant's poorer opportunity for pretrial release." In other words, the additional time spent in prison post-conviction was likely the result of the inability of the prisoner to post bond before trial - their income levels did not affect conviction rates. I'd suggest reading the study further to determine if at least part the reason for post-conviction release (or lack thereof) was mostly explained by the defendant not being able to afford to pay the victim back for what was stolen, which is a typical condition of theft type cases, called "restitution" in my state.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:Too bad? It's not any sort of argument to say "A long time ago someone said not to do that". I'm going to do it anyways, if you want to argue it's bad you need to point at some sort of harm I'm causing and not the fact that lawyers managed to form a guild that decided lawyers are immune from judgment. The harm: if society gets more and more comfortable with the idea of denying people we "don't like" with representation, eventually society will earn itself the power to deny representation for people we "don't like."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
twodot posted:I read a book and it turns out, you're wrong. Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags. I mean, at this point all your saying is, "Today, I, and most of the people I interact, with think Rich People are bad, so I don't care about eroding legal and social protections for everyone so long as it hurts those god drat Rich People right now." You're also saying, "I can't intellectually conceive of the idea that even though knocking down a railing on a mountain pass will certainly kill that person (who I hate) leaning against it, it will then kill anyone else who stumbles there, regardless of whether I like them or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It also said that the inadequacy of defense counsel was a cause I'll post this again, since the point I tried to get across unsuccessfully was that a single-state, 1978 study of one kind of case (burglary) is less representative than a nation-wide study of every kind of case. blarzgh posted:https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=772
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:ER doctors and public defenders both provide a vital public service that would be severely and fundamentally compromised if they discriminated between clients. Private attorneys provide the exact same vital public service to people who don't qualify for a public defender. Just to get myself clear on what you actually believe: 1. If you, personally, are super sure someone is guilty, then you think every private attorney is morally compelled to decline to represent them? 2. Because every private attorney in your world now refuses to represent them, you believe that states should foot the bill for the expense of every one of these people who are "super guilty" in your estimation, and force a public defender to perform the "immoral task" of representing these people?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:ok fine you've convinced me, ban private defense counsel then and give everyone a PD because anything else is a scam and should be illegal. You win! The rule is that everyone is entitled to an attorney. The rule is old-school, and designed as a check against the State. People can represent themselves if they want, or they can hire an attorney. However, it is so important that people have an attorney, as a check against the power of the State, that the State is required to provide them one if they can't afford it. Broadly, you have to remember that the Lawyer's duty is not only to the client, to give them the best possible representation, but the lawyer's duty is also to the public at large, to make the State do its job before taking away the freedom of its citizens. Its not up to the lawyer (edit: and not the public at large, either) to decide "how much" representation people need - it is up to defense attorneys to keep the all-powerful government in check. If every lawyer just rolled over whenever they were pretty sure their client was guilty, (or simply started deciding whether or not to represent detestable people) then the front line against an authoritarian government who prosecutes anyone and everyone at will, collapses. Its not the defense lawyer's job to decide who is innocent and who is guilty and help the prosecution when they see fit. Its the defense lawyer's job to be a check on the powers of the executive. Thats why constitutional violations are punished by suppressing evidence obtained through those violations. If there were no defense lawyers to punish those violations (by preventing convictions obtained through those violations) then the protections themselves would become meaningless. twodot posted:Private lawyers are not acting in service of that idea. That is a thing you made up. Public defenders are the ones dedicated to making sure everyone gets legal representation. Private lawyers are offering a legal service which can be obtained from a variety of places in exchange for money. Ok, this dude is literally advocating for doctors to start practicing execution by inaction on people the Doctor is "super sure" are bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:If they know their client is a horrible monster they should refuse non-emergency service. Like are you telling me that if you are a physician and Weinstein walks into your door, you're going to think "Here's a person I want to live a long healthy and strong life"? If nothing else it seems like there is a conflict of interests you couldn't avoid. There is literally no way you'd agree to this sort of absolute moral authority for any other public servant, like, I don't know, a police officer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:No I think people are specifically morally compelled to decline to represent Weinstein. Me: Why? You: Because he definitely did the things he's accused of. Me: Then blarzgh posted:1. If you, personally, are super sure someone is guilty, then you think every private attorney is morally compelled to decline to represent them? You: No. Me: Why? You: Beca
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ideally we would find a way for rich people to pay for it. But if a rich horrible monster shows up to court and says "I'm such a horrible monster no lawyer will take my money" obviously we got to force some lawyer to defend them. How we pay for that is of no great concern to me. And who gets to sit on this panel of "horrible monster adjudications"? Just you? or do you have some twitter followers who will do it as well? Maybe about 12 of yall could get together first before deciding, and, I don't know, look at the evidence or something together and listen to the people involved tell their stories? You'd want to put them under oath so that they don't lie, of course. And you'd want some rules about what evidence you could look at, so your decisions aren't colored by irrelevant, or unfairly prejudicial facts. Maybe you could get a 13th person to, oh, I don't know, "judge" the proceedings? To make sure the rules are followed.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:Private lawyers are not public servants. NeoBulletDodge.gif
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:This persistent pretense that a duty of service as part of a truly universal system as a necessary function of maintaining that universal system, vs picking and choosing as to sustain a deeply unequal system, is really gross and intellectually dishonest. Or maybe just dumb I dunno. Its the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but your argument is that twodot posted:The only person who gets to sit on the panel of "Who does twodot think is a horrible monster" is me, and I get to make the rules. You still refuse to anchor yourself to a position (which I understand because you understand that you just super hate Harvey Weinstein, and were willing to make a bold proclamation about our entire justice system, but now refuse to back down about it and admit that you just super hate Harvey Weinstein) so I'm asking you directly: 1. If you, personally, are super sure someone is guilty, then do you think every private attorney is morally compelled to decline to represent them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
twodot posted:Of course not. First because there are a large list of crimes I don't even think should be crimes. Secondly because even if we all agree the crime is bad, there a large list of circumstances that someone could think is very good to champion in court. Probably other reasons, I haven't really thought this all the way out because I never said anything of the sort. okay, so are you saying that only if you are super sure that someone is super guilty of a crime that you actually think is bad, and there's no other circumstances that someone should champion in court, then in that case all private defense attorney should decline the represent them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:No I am not saying that and have not said that. That is a short list of easy reasons it would be definitely ok to represent someone. There are presumably even more reasons it would definitely ok, and even more reasons where it would be ambiguous enough that I would argue no one should really care one way or the other. What I am saying and what I have said is there are specific individual instances where we can identify it's definitely not ok to publicly support monsters including choosing to be their personal private defense lawyer. okay, then why don't you elaborate and explain to me what those specific circumstances are where we, as society, get to the side that someone He's the kind of person that privates criminal defense attorneys to decline the represent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
I know it looks like I'm posting like I'm having a stroke, but bear with me because it's talk to text while I play with my kid
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Nah. This thread is about whether it is appropriate to judge lawyers for their clients, and I'm not going to bother to draft an ECMA specification on how to judge lawyers for their clients until there is agreement that we should. Everyone has already said that it's not appropriate to judge lawyers because of their clients. You're taking the position that it is, but refused to articulate under what circumstances it should be and why those circumstances justify your position.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Also I definitely not getting this concept that the government should force public defenders to do this quote unquote morally improper thing, because it is wrong to allow privately compensated attorneys to do the thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok for the purpose of this thread, it is my belief that exactly Weinstein should be shunned, and I'm not aware of any other people or circumstances that warrant it. Why?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I am right, time spent on cases, the amount of research they can do, their connections, all make a difference. Money pays for more than just the name, that's why the rich are willing to pay No, you are wrong. I understand that you've got a position to take, and you've got an emotional need to take that position, but it's not supported by the facts
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:54
|
|
|
twodot posted:Seeking out to help a horrible monster is bad. Defending a horrible monster because you are a member of a public service whose purpose is to ensure everyone has legal representation is good. So the government tells you to murder a kitten it's not morally bad, but if you just choose to for financial gain that it is? Are you really espousing the idea that you can convert something that's morally bad into something morally good by having the government tell you to do it? And at this point I understand you're refusing to commit yourself to a position with respect to Harvey Weinstein but you should appreciate that I'm a lot more stubborn than I really should be and I'm going to continue to try and get you to admit but the reason you think Harvey Weinstein should be shunned by criminal defense attorneys is because you personally think he's guilty of something you think is bad enough to warrant said shunning
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You don't think money spent on legal defense affects the outcome? I don't know where you came in this thread, but search my posts and it's one of the second or third things I posted.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:I would say that murdering a kitten and the practice of criminal defense are pretty different things that we like shouldn't compare to each other. Is there disagreement there? Ok, this is fantastic. We've broken the issue down to it's root: you care more that this particular person be denied justice because of what he did than you care about what happens to the justice system if you got your way. In other words, you think attorneys who agree to represent someone who's obviously guilty of his crimes specifically are committing a moral wrong. Here is why you should feel differently: there are millions of people who's lives and freedoms depend on us not crafting exceptions and whittling away at the bulkhead of criminal justice on behalf of Harvey Weinstein. He's not worth it. He's garbage and he is not important enough for us to expose other people to the dangers of trending social thought and deprecated legal protections caused by our desire to punish him. We need to keep the wall between us and the criminal justice system as strong and fortified as possible, and he's a dumb piece of poo poo who's not worth poking holes in it for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:We need to keep the legal system exactly as it is or millions of people will suffer. Re read the post you just criticized. We need to build a stronger wall between the people and the criminal justice system that's trying to incarcerate them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:By maintaining the status quo. Because you're arguing against attacking its injustices. Wrong and wrong. It must hurt to be you.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:52
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Mate you're literally whingeing about how it's terrible that rich rape boy's rich rape lawyers face any consequences. Even the mildest criticism from literally anyone. A theatrical mischaracterization, but nonetheless the core of your point is correct. I do think it's a bad idea to criticize attorneys for the client they decide to represent against the government trying to incarcerate them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
I'll go one further: we should celebrate any attorney who works to prevent the government from incarcerating anyone!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 01:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think that there is a separate special justice system just for the rich where outcomes are pretty much for sale, and everyone involved makes a ton of money off that. I'll post this again, since I've already posted it twice and I guess you didn't bother to read it, because if you had you'd be glad that you're wrong! blarzgh posted:https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=772 VitalSigns posted:I think that everyone who participates in and profits from this system is bad (with allowances for special circumstances, etc, under which I might not judge every single individual as bad). Since the aforementioned is categorically untrue, you don't need to feel this way anymore! Congratulations! VitalSigns posted:Sullivan is one of those people, he isn't defending Weinstein because he's a martyr to the cause of justice or because his kids will starve if he doesn't. No one is even trying to argue that he's doing it for any reason other than greed, because he loving obviously isn't Here is the juice, though. You're saying, "I, VitalSigns, poster cum laude and all-knowing, all-seeing eye of Agamemnon KNOW, with absolute certainty, the motivations and innermost thoughts of this complex human being, living thousands of miles away, because I have read several tweets about the client he intends to represent. And further, I thusly adjudicate this person forthwith with my god-like powers of divination of intent, and he is thus rendered and adjudged GUILTY of wanting to make money without also wanting or thinking of anything else." Did you know Sullivan represented Michal Brown's family in their wrongful death case? https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2018/03/06/prosecutor-adds-attorney-for-michael-brown-family.html Did you know Sullivan represented Selorm Ohene in his police brutality against Cambridge police? https://www2.bostonglobe.com/metro/...nline_Text_Link Did you know Sullivan represented a young sexual assault victim, pro bono, in her efforts to bring charges against her perpetrator? (https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/02/12/harvard-harvey-weinstein-now-cause-for-concern/GXpf7wL9mbnWRTfLrfTrRM/story.html) Did you know Sullivan won the release of more wrongfully incarcerated individuals — over 6,000 — than arguably anyone in U.S. history? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/an-unsung-hero-in-our-midst-ronald-s-sullivan-jr_b_59769731e4b0940189700c36 Maybe next time you think you KNOW everything there is to KNOW about someone and their infinite motivations, when you're ready to pass judgment, you can take 7 seconds to google them first. quote:“It’s completely flawed to suggest that attorneys can’t step into and out of roles and representations and keep them separate,” said the woman [Dean Sullivan represented in her sexual assault case], who went on to become a sex crimes prosecutor. “Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to have lives.”
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:01
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:drat sounds like he's actually good. That's reassuring. Glad I didn't read anything but op and blarzgh's posts. You're a national treasure.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:So digging into the article MP linked yields the following, apparantly. A professor at Harvard, Ronald Fryer, was under Title IX investigation. This article , which was referenced in the Crimson article MP linked, describes the situation in a little more detail and contains the quotes from Sullivan. Whole article is worth a read but I'll reproduce the quotes here. He also explains that the perceived railroading of Fryer was racist in its implementation.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:14
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Blarzgh you keep saying a set of statistics that is broad is disproving a narrower premise that they don't apply to. The narrow premise is that money buys you better representation. I have access only to information that tends to show that isn't true. I have personal exposure to a system and set of facts that tell me that isn't true. Why should I change my mind?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:18
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You seem to also be implying that someone who did good things cant have done bad things or shouldn't be judged for those bad things. But they should. First I'll clarify: I'm saying that maybe only reading about the "bad things" impairs VitalSigns' ability to 100% know for certain the specific and singular motivations of Robert Sullivan, i.e. "No one is even trying to argue that he's doing it for any reason other than greed, because he loving obviously isn't" Second, I'll let you in on something: No one is as singular as the internet needs them to be. And no one ever truly knows the mind of another person.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I guess we are just supposed to believe that there is some minimum level of buyable justice that everyone is getting through the PD system and the rich are paying out their rear end because they don't know any better? This seems absurd. 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."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted: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 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 for the headlines where a super rich person "got off" there will also be headlines for the Bernie Madoffs of the world where half of them are locked up and the rest forfeited all their assets. I'm happy to believe that spending millions on a criminal defense gets you significantly better results, if I can get a survey of cases where the defense spent millions and compare the results to similarly charged cases where the defense didn't spend millions. I'm not interested in a position, I'm interested in having my position defined by what can be shown as opposed to be defined by how I feel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't really see what this is supposed to prove. Its not supposed to prove anything; its just to make you question the concrete certainty you developed after reading that Dean Sullivan is a man motivated solely by "greed." And hopefully make you consider that lots of things, including people's motivations and the interface between social moors and legal protections, are more complex than easy good/bad designations.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:Do you believe it is ever possible to know whether another person is doing a bad thing? Sure, you can know what someone does, but the idea that you can every truly know all their motivations, and in what proportion those motivations are driving their decisions is pretty flawed. Here, watch this: I "know" that you don't really care about Harvey Weinstein, or Robert Sullivan, or objective justice or civil liberties. I "know" that you just hate that rich people have more money than you and it makes you mad at them because it feels bad to you, and you're willing to take any position that justifies you levying what little power you feel like you have, like Internet Shame, over them because that makes you feel a little less powerless relative to your perception of their extreme power imbalance. I "know" that you care more about feeling like you can "do something" about it by "shaming people" because you feel like you can't trust the process to properly convict him. I "know" that you don't think the wrong power in the wrong hands can ever be dangerous, because right now you feel like you want the power to "shame" people into not representing certain criminals and its OK because you and everyone you agree with will only use this power in the "right" cases. See how dumb that is?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 11:39 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's weird how how many posts from people supposedly reading the thread assert that anyone ever said that Weinstein should get no legal counsel when in fact the consistent position has been that his wealth should not entitle him to counsel beyond that the average poor gets. The only consistent thing in this thread has been the whiplash speed at which the posters in it can jump from position to moderately modified position.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 20:09
|
|