|
I like this question because it speaks to so much wrong with our legal system. The rich buy the attorneys who play golf with the judges and everyone comes out ahead except poor people. As long as he could get a public defender I think it's fair to apply these sorts of social pressures against gross rich weirdos and their fancy lawyers. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jun 7, 2019 |
#
¿
Jun 7, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Randler posted: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. Because the Constitution. The right to criminal representation is one of the few good things about our legal system.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I’m not sure the concept defense lawyers support crime makes any sense at all. Not the concept. Private defense lawyers supporting lovely people regardless of their criminality can be judged for such.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:The govt should pay legal fees FTFY. it's not like guilt is the only thing to consider. Which is what he wants too essentially, so what are you even arguing?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Are you saying we should pay the fees of a murderer who gets convicted thats a bit hosed. Once theyre sitting in the slammer convicted why is it the govts business to pay for their legal fees if theyre convicted guilty Even the guilty have the right to a criminal defense. The costs of prosecution and receiving a fair defense should not factor into the punishments for crimes, that's absurd. Not to mention absurdly abusable. Everyone should get a properly funded public defender. The rich shouldn't get special treatment.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:should we judge doctors for their patients? Here again it is useful to distinguish some doctors from others.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Which is probably the #1 reason not to get into the habit of shaming criminal defense lawyers for doing their job. You are conflating groups that others are explicitly distinguishing and it seems you might be a bit confused.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Do you think that the government prosecuting you also being allowed to choose who defends you might present some problems or conflicts of interest? If that was what anyone was suggesting it might be a problem but it seems to be something you made up based on your not understanding or on a desire to invent problems. "If i just call it all 'the government' then everyone forgets that it is made up of entities that are often completely separated." VitalSigns posted:Thinking about this more, you might be confused about the difference between a legal presumption of innocence in a courtroom, and social consequences for one's actions I dunno about you but I'm getting real tired of people who are always "confused but making the worst possible assumptions" as it seems to be the same people over and over and they often seem confused about the same things again and again. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:17 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Some divorce lawyers may be good and some bad. One way to determine that is to see if they consistently represent lovely assholes on the basis that that gets them more money.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:"Every client deserves a defense and I like getting paid" seems a consistent set of motivations. It may be mercenary but it's not unethical. "Greed is not unethical" is a hot loving take
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
We should judge rich lawyers the way we judge all other rich people. Scum. "But you see this is all ok if we just set aside the fact that capitalism is inherently unethical"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
Everyone who compared being rich to being gay is the worst
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
We already have that result tho. "We can't try to do good things, what if they end up like they are right now but things are worse for me? 
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
"the current mode of failure is well understood and it doesn't affect me. Since things can't be perfect we daren't try to improve them any. They might get worse for me" You are repeating yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Improving things includes safety nets. Are you saying you are opposed to safety nets also? I had already imagined that to be the case but I want to make sure I understand that that's what you mean because you are not very clear here. Maybe we should aim to not need safety nets because engaging with or being engaged by our legal system should not be akin to a risk of a drop from a deadly height. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 13:54
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:We're talking about a principle, aren't we? I have no power to compel any community to take any particular stance on this and I wouldn't expect anything to change as a result of us arguing on the forums. If it's all just principles we should support the good thing and not hem and haw about these communities that might want to do bad things
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No of course not. You did. They are repeating bad arguments because they have no good ones. "we should do good things" "But what if bad and good things are the same. Can you imagine the damage it would do to the black community if Cosby could be turned away by law firms for being rich and gross." ad infinitum Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:arguing that criminal defense attorneys are scumbags for representing criminals No one has done this at any time in this thread. It's like you can't be bothered to read it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Your argument makes no goddamn sense though. If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will not affect the quality of his defense, then what harm are his lawyers causing that is worthy of opprobrium? If you think that Weinstein being unable to hire the lawyer of his choice will affect the quality of his defense, then you're pretty indisputably trying to deny him his right to effective counsel. If being forced to take a PD affects the quality of his defense then our justice system is a joke and all you are defending here is the rights of the rich to have justice where the poor don't. To which I say, gently caress all the way off. Owlofcreamcheese posted:How, specifically do you know who’s a monster? Good point, everyone should have access to a robust system of public defense, which no one has disputed yet in this thread so I guess maybe I was wrong when I said "good point"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Edit- misread
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Just as twodot is entitled to call that attorney a piece of poo poo. I dunno are you not worried about the chilling affects that this might lead to other attorneys or minorities being called pieces of poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The idea that the criminal justice system should deny defense to people based on crimes they are accused of based on "that crime they got accused of is pretty bad" is so self obviously stupid I can't believe you are arguing in good faith and actually don't get that. The idea that it'd be okay because you would just gut feeling out which people were guilty ahead of the trial to know if they should get lawyers or not is absurd. Good thing no one said that. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
blarzgh posted: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. What non-emergency police services are relevant here?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It is the inevitable result of a system where medical doctors refuse care for patients based on their moral judgments about them. A slippery slope that leads right to where we are today Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean if you want to argue for the abolition of private criminal defense I will not fight you on it. It's a real good list on the last page of things to also work on while we do that. Thanks HA
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:How about this: we can all say Weinstein gets no representation, but it's a non-precedential decision like bush v gore. I don't think anyone has said he shouldn't get representation. Just that it should be only by appointment. Mr. Nice! posted:This. Also there are ethical rules in places that do not allow attorneys to really turn people down people at will. As long as they have the money
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm not a private attorney. All the attorneys are arguing with you because they understand the system and you're making fundamental errors which show you don't. He understands it. He's saying it's bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted: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 You don't think money spent on legal defense affects the outcome?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted: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. I'm making sure I'm clear because it seems really counterintuitive given the general agreement from everyone, I thought, that public defenders need to be properly funded.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Public defenders are underfunded for sure and should get more funding. They need to pay better to help keep good lawyers there. They are always going to be understaffed and overworked, though, because it's a hard loving job. I agree that's why I think it's a problem that lawyers can turn clients away for inability to pay
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:underfunded and overworked. This is because it's a very difficult job to do. Cause and effect reversed here. Draft all private defense attorneys. There's no ethical consumption of legal services under capitalism. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:If your argument is that all criminal lawyers should be public defenders, then hoo boy have I got some stories to tell you from countries where the prosecution and defence both work for the government. Like the rest you are right back to "Justice for the rich. Don't Rock the boat."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 12:41
|
|
|
Edit- this part is not responsive to the immediately above as i had not yet read it. Intent and outcomes both matter. They matter in criminal law and they matter here. It's real dumb how DR keeps trying to make it one or the other but useful for framing where you are wrong here HA. Just because someone has to do a job, doesn't mean I'm not concerned or creeped out by the intent of folks who are way to eager to do gross bad jobs. Someone has to change old man diapers but that doesn't mean I won't judge people who are too eager to be involved in that process. Or who only will do it for the very wealthy. Hieronymous Alloy posted:C) If the argument is "he shouldn't be able hire an attorney but should have one appointed" he can't have one appointed so that's not relevant to judging Sullivan in the present, it's only an argument in a hypothetical alternate or future reality. "He shouldn't be able to hire an attorney" is equivalent to "he should not be allowed an attorney" in the present reality. He should be put in the position where he cannot find representation and the courts have no choice but to appoint someone even if that doesn't fit into our current schema of public defense. Hieronymous Alloy posted:Rowling doesn't deserve a doctor because she's rich. This is framing the argument wrong. The argument is: Rowling doesn't, based on her wealth, deserve access to doctors and healthcare beyond what the others in her community have access to. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 14:05
|
|
|
What I'm hearing is that we can't judge greedy lawyers for their greed because even the rich need lawyers. This seems flatly illogical. I'm not required to fix society before I judge greedy people. It keeps getting framed as judging them for defending criminals, but it's not. It's judging their greed. I judge greedy doctors in a way I don't judge those volunteering for DWB. Nevvy Z posted:Rowling doesn't, based on her wealth, deserve access to doctors and healthcare beyond what the others in her community have access to. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 14:22 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:OTOH if Sullivan's worst crime is fleecing Weinstein out of a shitload of money and then providing him legal services no better than what Weinstein would get from an appionted atty, that doesn't seem like a sin worth all this fuss. Oh no a rich rapist is getting scammed Weird assumption.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 14:44
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We went over it a few pages back, its supported by data. Generally public defenders do a better or equal job to private defense attorneys, statistically speaking at least. private defense bar is not any better than the public bar overall. We aren't talking about all private defense generally though. Hieronymous Alloy posted:You're blaming one individual for participating in capitalism. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
We can claim two things are wrong at once. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
Blarzgh you keep saying a set of statistics that is broad (private defense vs public defense) is disproving a narrower premise (the private defense of the rich specificially) that they don't apply to. If they applied, then the rich wouldn't be paying out the wazoo for expensive lawyers like they do. 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. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted: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? Well for one thing it's obviously disproved by the relationship between properly funded PD's or not and the outcomes thereof.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 16:40
|
|