|
Dubar posted:As long as the lawyer had a choice in whether to represent the client, they should have to face whatever consequences or criticism that comes their way. If no one WANTS to represent someone, then that person is still entitled to representation and can have a public defender assigned to them (who should NOT be subject to those same criticisms). Why shouldn't public defenders be subject to those same criticisms? The public defenders also had a choice. They deliberately chose to work a role in the legal ecosystem that includes* the defense of people, who are so reprehensible, that other lawyers won't defend them. Personally, I feel those choices are similar enough that they should both be receive the same feedback on their defense. * The fact that role also includes the defense of those who are too poor for other defense and thus get hosed the hardest doesn't change that. For me those two facets should be considered separately.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
twodot posted:The distinction between a person working in a publicly provided service that society has decided everyone needs and a freelance person picking and choosing clients to maximize their wealth should be incredibly obvious. Criminal defense lawyers provide the same service regardless of whether they are public defenders, employees or freelancers. The distinction the lawyers' motivation to perform that service do not alter my opinion of the service itself. So I don't think either public defenders or criminal defense attorneys should be judged for defending a bad person. And correspondingly, a freelance lawyer who chooses clients only to maximize his wealth should be judged even if that somehow resulted in him only working for good people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't think motivation behind an action matters at all? Yes, to me motivations behind an action do not matter when judging an action, because only the action itself affects stuff and should therefore be considered separately. So for a surgeon, cutting people with knives as part of a medical procedure is generally good, regardless of whether the surgeon does it for altruistic motives, monetary gain or for the social prestige. Conversely, I'm fine with judging action I deem harmful, regardless of motivation. So if you are US military, I think that is a harmful action, even if you have a deeply-held belief that your action is actually helping people and causes good.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 20:08
|
|