|
We had this debate in USPOL awhile back and I stand by my position that it's one thing when a lawyer is assigned to a shitbag, it's another thing entirely if they seek out the shitbag. If you voluntarily seek out to be Harvey Weinstein's defense attorney and are also publicly pro-sexual harassment (lol), then yeah people should judge the gently caress out of you and not respect you at all.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 08:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:36 |
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Stop accusing each other of being secret nazis or antisemites without some kind of actual concrete proof. This is in response to reports, I am not up to date on the thread. That is all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 14:31
|
|