|
Don't wanna get poo poo for defending dickheads don't be a lawyer. Seems pretty simple.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Maybe lawyers have a lovely reputation because they're a major part of the vehicle whereby money gets you freedom. If the justice system were something worth defending you might have a point but I see no reason to boo hoo over rich shithead lawyers suffering mild criticism while remaining filthy rich from enforcing plutocracy. gently caress them and gently caress their lovely rich clients.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
The pretense that everyone gets equal representation however is not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
No who they choose to defend is important too, when the law functions to entrench inequality and injustice then choosing to defend the rich and powerful absolutely reflects on the individual and cannot be excused by some "oh everyone's entitled to a defence" schtick.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Indeterminacy posted:I buy the "private legal practice entrenches inequality" argument, but it seems like you're arguing that law itself has been compromised. Sure, gently caress da polis, there is no ethical agency under capitalism, mass revolution now or bust etc. etc. but hypothetically speaking, there are always going to be multiple different avenues of legal representation and specialization in as much as any kind of codified system of social standards of action exists, even if you completely overhaul the system. I don't think this question disappears just because we live in a socialist utopia. Well yeah? The law is the basis for upholding virtually all inequality in the world. The law is the basis of capitalism so necessarily an anticapitalist position must argue that the law as it stands is bad, and have no respect for it as an institution. Use it when it's useful sure but like, when it clearly functions to entrench the power of wealth, gently caress it and gently caress the people who practice it? Like fundamentally the question isn't "is it legal" but "is it right?" and if you can clearly point to something that is wrong despite being legally upheld then the obvious position is to attack the law itself, and its practicioners, until they change it. The law clearly isn't equal so the idea that an attack on the law is an attack on everyone is, I think, wrong. The law serves to punish the vulnerable and protect the powerful, so it's difficult to characterise most attacks on it as bad. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jun 9, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 15:39
|
|
|
Also the logic of complaining about punishing bad behaviour in the context of defending the judicial system is loving megalol.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
I'm not sure that's what I'd call a good outcome tbh.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Bolded the part where you sneaked in a motivation to distinguish surgery from butchery. Also note how you had to include a qualifier: "generally" good, to acknowledge that the exact same action which is good in one circumstance can be bad under other circumstances. Motivation is central to our moral frameworks, it's also how we distinguish an actor giving a Nazi speech in an antiNazi movie from a Nazi giving a Nazi speech in a Nazi film. I mean I'd personally argue that capability and circumstance rather than motivation are what distinguishes surgery from butchery. You don't get to do surgery just because you're extremely motivated to help someone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I didn't mean to imply that motivation was the only distinguishing factor but it is among them. I mean generally it's more that they consent to it and stuff, people assume the motivation sure but really what matters is that you are capable and the context (they need surgery, they understand and have consented to it, other surgeons judge that you have done it properly if it comes to review). A fairly strict consequentialist view does work and doesn't really come out on the side of the justice system either I don't think. Given that I'd probably criticise it primarily by its outcomes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Won't someone think of the poor oppressed lawyers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:People have a right to choose their legal representation. Maybe they shouldn't. I mean if you wanna get more complicated conflating "the ability to choose" with "the ability to buy" is loving dumb for a large number of reasons but not sure if you're ready for that notion yet. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Can we have a thread rule that we all acknowledge that money grants unequal access to a bunch of things but rehashing that argument is kind of boring so we just accept it as read into the record and focus on other questions? Ok. wateroverfire posted:it's super problematic to suggest that because not everyone can afford the best lawyers (or any lawyers at all) that no one should be able to pay for their own laywer. You first. Guys I know money makes things very unequal but it's super problematic to suggest that we can't have let people bribe the judge just because not everyone can afford it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Should lawyers NOT want to get paid? Should doctors? Should everyone? You're not doing very well with this whole "let's ignore the money problem"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Unlike now where it's only the poor outsiders who eat poo poo while the rich ones get off scott free.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 21:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But whatever, let’s assume it would work. Fine. Done. In the absence of such a system (since it doesn’t exist today, won’t exist next year, and almost definitely won’t exist next decade either and we have to deal with reality) surely you can see the point that as things stand today, running lawyers out on a rail because they represented “bad” clients is just going to make attorneys think twice before they take on clients that society thinks are “bad”, some of whom are worthy of protection? This terrible systemic existing today problem of... people who defend noted shithead harvey weinstein getting negative publicity from students is definitely ruining the country.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 22:32
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:The point is that "punish a lawyer because ~the community~ doesn't like their clients" doesn't apply only to rich people's lawyers. Maybe it overwhelmingly already applies to poor people and the pearl clutching when the mildest criticism is levelled at a rich prick is loving hilarious and pathetic in equal measure?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay, but this leaves you with no good response when people start condemning lawyers who defend clients they think are icky but who you want to protect. You might say those people are wrong, but that won’t matter to the lawyers in their community, who have to live and make their reputations by the standards of their community, not twodot’s master moral codex that is always right. I've got a great response it's gently caress the rich lol. The problem isn't that some people suffer it's that the wrong people suffer. And again, you're suggesting that the alternative is some magical utopia where everone is nice and everything is fair because we all agree that marginalizing people shouldn't happen because we were nice to rick prick lawyers. Which, loving lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:See the problem with arguing with you is exactly that you don’t have any principles other than that you hate rich people and want to hurt them. You’re a conservative’s parody of a progressive. You're arguing that it's immoral to attack the inequality in the justice system on the basis that it will hurt the people who are already being hurt by said inequality, and therefore we should all be nice and not challenge it, which will help them, in the face of loving reality. Which is that it does absolutely nothing to help people. You're literally arguing that the status quo is good because it helps people when everyone else is pointing out that the only people it helps are rich scumbags who are above the law because of how money controls the justice system. What I hate is that injustice, that outcome, and fixing it involves attacking the people perpetuating it. You can happy clappy kumbaya this fantasy notion of decorum being the solution to systemic wrongdoing but I would suggest that that is a far more laughable idea than mine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So trying to make rules for ethics is pointless because not everyone will follow them. Hmm. Ethics is not politics, do you understand this?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Getting someone fired because you don’t like their client is not “attacking the inequality in the justice system”. As I have explained a thousand times, that kind of thinking actually tends to make the justice system less equal. I know that you are very used to justifying your vindictiveness as a crusade against injustice, but it doesn’t make sense here. Getting someone fired because their client is rich and thus embodies the biggest systemic injustice in the world today absolutely does attack the inequality of wealth in the justice system. Boiling poo poo down to blanket statements is a very weak form of argumentation. Like very very simply, if rich people couldn't get fancy lawyers, that would make the justice system more equal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Like the whole point of weinstein is that his connections and money are what put him in the position to do what he did and get away with it, and now he's hiring fancy lawyers with his money and connections to get away with it even more. And you're coming in saying "hey now you can't say bad things about that cos that's gonna hurt people who can't afford lawyers, really saying that being rich is bad is childish"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
Arguing specifically against the aspect of the legal system that exists solely to facilitate people getting away with crimes is entirely consistent with wanting to reduce that outcome... The argument is that public defenders sometimes fail to carry out justice whereas expensive lawyers generally exist to produce injustice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
If there weren't an equivalence then people wouldn't pay for lawyers..? You input money and you output a greatly increased probability of either being acquitted or reducing your sentence for your crimes. And the likelihood is proportional to how much money you have to input. You can argue the details sure but the outcome is quite comparable in both cases, wealth = immunity from the law. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
Yes all those poor minorities who would be hurt if they couldn't get the most expensive legal defense for the crime of being a big rapist facilitated by being rich and respected. The critique across the thread has consistently been some fomulation of "wealth and power facilitating greater immunity from the law is bad" and the other lot keep saying "if you say that about the wealthy and powerful what about the people who are the opposite of that HUHH??" and it's really stupid. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:54 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 02:48
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Politics is 100% about morality. I think you of all people should understand this, since it seems that all of your posts in this thread and maybe (?) even on this politics message board are motivated by righteous indignation. No politics is (or should be) the practical application of morality, having a moral preference is not the same as having a policy that works. Decorum is a lovely moral ideal but an absolutely terrible policy in an inherently conflicting context. Hence why I'm constantly bolshy, because of the context. If people obeyed consistent moral principles then poltics would be as simple as just explaining a good moral principle and then everyone follows it, but it isn't. Like in the right context I am 100% for civilized discussion and non combative consensus decisions making. In fact I dream one day of living in a world where this method can be how we do politics, but we don't live in such a world and arguing in favour of the status quo as if that will somehow transition us into one is very silly, I think. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
JoshGuitar posted:The same happens in any society. Whether "wealth" is defined as dollars in the bank, or controlling a large number of serfs, or being a sufficiently zealous Soviet with the right connections. If only there were some sort of political position that criticised that tendency and had suggestions as to why it might occur and what we might do about it. Also "it happens in all societies" does not mean it happens the same amount all the time everywhere and that nothing can be done to change the frequency and magnitude at which it occurs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Indeterminacy posted:If the state is insistent on lawyers being more accessible to the wealthy/white/powerful, then recognising that the public purse is limited, publicly funding all defense lawyers and submitting the same kind of legal representation for people across the board means when savings are needed, the cuts are made to those who serve the poor/black/vulnerable. How do you feel about universal healthcare?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 11:52
|
|
|
Again this weird belief that inequality should be perpetuated because the alternative is temporary problems for people who currently don't have many problems. Like why are you characterising universal services as bad because "they don't provide a safety net"? Do you have even the remotest experience with one? They're the biggest safety net there ever was... You're arguing literal nonsense by saying that the desire, and ability (because there is no reason why you should be able to provide decent service universally) to ensure everyone has access to good services is bad because it will somehow marginalize people who don't have much money in a way that relying on private services or woefully underfunded public options of last resort clearly doesn't? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Yeah don't let determinism stop you from being angry, not least because if the world is deterministic, you can't!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
But that's purely an artifact of phrasing, though? Like if everyone pursued all available methods of political activism against inequality, we would end inequality overnight. Wow magic now it's actually great! The point is people don't magically act universally overnight... It is in fact possible to advocate for particular political activities in pursuit of particular goals.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can't just handwave the fact that people are going to disagree about what constitutes "equality" or whether some level of inequality is acceptable/good. The whole point is that you have to recognize that "OK, people are going to have disagreements about what is good, but by what set of rules can we live together as a free society in spite of that?" instead of saying "gently caress rules, I'm going to do what I think is good, because if everyone agreed with me about what is good, then they would do good things too That's literally an argument for never changing anything because if you try to change anything and everyone else tried to change things then the change might be worse...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 20:44
|
|
"
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It is not. It is an argument that, if you want to make changes to improve an ordered system with multiple stakeholders, you have to use universal rules, rather than saying "everyone should just do what I think is best." ...why??? Like, do you think society operates on universal rules?? Because I think most of us are contending that it absolutely doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Maybe asking a different question would help clarify. Why should people make the changes you want to make? Beeecaaauuse the current system is bad and creates a tiered society where the wealthy can do crimes with impunity and the poor can be prosecuted and convicted wrongfully, and a big part of that difference is money, money allowing you to effectively buy immunity from the law. E: and to clarify that's bad, and if you don't think that's bad then I think everyone should poo poo on you until you either change your mind or gently caress off.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
I'm not sure that being really nice to people is gonna make them be nice to you in the context of a drastic power imbalance.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:That said you're making a huge jump to leap from what I was saying to "public disapproval of bad people is bad." I'm not sure that discussing public disapproval of bad people is even the right question. There's either no such thing as "bad people" or we're all bad people; the whole notion of "bad people" vs "good people" seems medieval to me The notion that behaviour is learned is not remotely incompatible with the notion that some people learn highly destructive behaviour and are thus "bad people"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Ideally. But that necessitates the construction of a society where that is possible, and you aren't going to get there by coddling the presently destructive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:The American criminal justice system is one of the most heinous injustices in the history of the modern world and if you think the people who get in its way to keep people out of its clutches are part of the problem - whoever signs their paychecks - if you think they are the problem, you’re an idiotic ultra left baby So you think the justice system is bad but don't see any connection between how wealth makes you exempt from it and that injustice..?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
I think maybe the effects of private legal practice are not "OJ Simpson not going to prison and nothing else" By the same logic, charles manson went to prison, therefore prison is good? Look do you think that maybe the reason why the majority of criminal prosecutions against the poor are mishandled might have something to do with the fact that the very wealthy are a: the people who run the country and b: have access to a private legal service that only they can afford and which provides for them a higher tier of legal system which means they have no reason to want to reform the one everyone else has to use? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Mate if you can't figure out that I just think wealth inequality is like, morally and practically extremely bad and that getting rid of it would mean getting rid of both the cause and effect of many of the evils in the world I dunno if that's on me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Defendants have a right to competent and zealous defense. Eroding that right for anyone erodes it for everyone, both as a practical matter and also as a logical necessity. Defendents absolutely do not have a right to a competent and zealous defence. People who can afford it have a right to a competent and zealous defence, that's the complaint...
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 23:32
|
|