|
Oh wow. So gently caress this conversation then because the whole point is to get us talking about whether or not it's okay for someone who merely did his job to get retribution, and thus bury the actual scummy poo poo he did. Like, I think the conversation of ethics in a combative legal system is interesting and worth having, but as long as the OP is focused on the Harvard example that side is inherently bad faith.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is pretty much the crux of the matter. Honest question- what does a non-adversarial legal system look like without devolving into complete tyranny or mob rule?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 08:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Uh... this isn't like, a hypothetical thing. I don't know as that inquisitorial legal systems really solve the main problems. The only change is that now the judges, a lot of whom already trip on their own power, now get to control criminal investigations and get more evidence that they've already drawn biased conclusions for. Our legal system is fundamentally hosed up mainly because our focus is on petty revenge and subjugation of the lower class. That's not a philosophical issue with adversarial legal systems rather our specific penal codes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
First thing first- just gonna remind everybody that Sullivan lost his job of ensuring the safety and well-being of students because he's a rape apologist and actively disregarded concerns from students regarding their safety and well-being. The argument whether or not defense attorneys should face repercussions based on clients is 100% a strawman and anyone taking that side is either arguing in bad faith or has been duped by bad faith actors. Anyway, lots of abstract about rich lawyers vs public defenders as though there's some invisible "lawyer experience meter" and rich ones have a higher meter. Obviously experience matters and often more experienced lawyers will have established practices and be able to charge more but it's not the one to one just world bullshit that is being implied here. The real difference, which affects every lawyer, regardless of skill and experience, is preparation time. Scrutinizing evidence, preparing witnesses, researching case law, planning arguments, etc. Ideally, for our adversarial system, both prosecution and defense should have access to the same resources and level of preparation and thus everything is presented to the judge and jury with maximal accuracy and little undeclared bias. However, in practice, the level of preparation can vary wildly, which will make a big difference for how the judge and jury will perceive the evidence presented. Imagine a damning fingerprint is presented in a trial. A prepared defense could be ready to attack potential gaps in the lifted fingerprint, show how common the patterns used to identify really are and how many other possible matches there were, bring a forensics expert on stand to explain all the flaws with fingerprint analysis, or list case precedent where similar prints were dismissed as evidence. An unprepared defense will simply have to let the fingerprint enter evidence without objection. The nature of the evidence itself won't change but with the context of preparation a jury might be more skeptical of what that evidence means, making them far more likely to vote not guilty. Preparation is where money makes the difference. To my understanding, public defenders are typically saddled with multiple cases and make a relatively low salary. If they want to spend time doing proper prep work for a case it will mean neglecting focus on other cases and/or sacrificing personal time with no extra pay. Private law firms, meanwhile, can put multiple lawyers on a single case, getting weeks worth of work done in a single day, each manhour of which is billable giving the firm plenty of incentive to do so. So there's effectively two worlds going on in our criminal justice system- prosecutors submitting plea deals to the wealthy in hopes that a slap on the wrist is worth the time they'll waste in court getting every piece of evidence dismissed and public defenders bargaining down the plea deal hoping the government is willing to only slightly oppress their client to save time getting a full conviction. None of this is actually based on factual guilt- rich people aren't getting off because the evidence is on their side and poor people aren't getting convicted because the evidence is against them. Most cases don't even go to trial because everyone knows how it actually works and plea deals are more convenient to everyone. Except those who are robbed of justice by this guaranteed punishment for the poor and safety net for the rich.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 10:14
|
|
|
Nah, this bit is right. It's some just world bullshit to think that higher payed lawyers are inherently the best lawyers. The difference is a private attorney can focus on one case and spend more time preparing. A large law firm also has far more resources than any single lawyer. DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:People have a right to effective and zealous representation. You argued that because there's disparities in the help from white shoe firms and court appointed lawyers (and I graciously haven't really pressed you on this) that the private defense bar should be banned, or lawyers who aren't court appointed should be shunned, or that they're uniquely amoral vultures (as opposed to any other taxpaying, law-abiding stiff). You're literally bitching about real people who keep other, equally real people out of the hands of the carceral state - with no support and nothing to back you up but your own sense of moral superiority. Multimillionaire white men are the loving state. When we talk about people who can afford these massive legal teams, we're talking about the people who use the state for their personal gain at the expense of the poor. Weinstein isn't the victim of an oppressive state- he's a guy who's siphoned millions in profits off indie film makers. He's a guy who held power over thousands of people and used that power to violate women's autonomy. The consequences he's facing is the justice of his workforce standing up for themselves in SPITE of the state. Sullivan isn't a hero defending the oppressed- he's getting a big paycheck to help the powerful guy keep his power. Weinstein is entitled to the same justice everyone else is entitled to. The lawyers he's got are not even remotely the same justice everyone else gets. These legal teams are a tool exclusive to the powerful designed to circumvent justice and resemble the legal counsel that we have a right to in name only.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 10:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
Ffs, y'all making the most obtuse slippery slopes possible. People who profit off unjust systems are deserving of social ridicule. The American legal system is a corrupt institution designed to oppress the lower class. Those who profit off entrenching it deserve judgement. Lawyers who try their best to help victims of this system navigate the corruption are worthy of praise. Lawyers who aid the wealthy in circumventing justice deserve derision. Context here loving matters. 80 women claim to have been personally sexually assaulted by Weinstein. Weinstein is pleading not guilty. What the actual gently caress is the defense here? This isn't one or two women levying charges, it's 80. So the argument being presented must either be that 80 private individuals, all of whom are a lower social status than Weinstein, are committing perjury OR they are telling the truth but we shouldn't consider this rape. Either way, in defending Weinstein you are entrenching injustice- by discrediting the very notion of witness testimony or redefining laws so they don't apply to the wealthy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 07:39
|
|