|
Only innocent people should get trials
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
The us system being bad doesn't mean you should replace it with something absurdly worse. If no one respectable can ever defend any client accused of a serious crime then you just have a kangaroo court. Harvey Weinstein is pretty drat clearly guilty, he should go to jail after a totally real trial that finds that, you shouldn't need a kangaroo joke trial for people that are actually clearly guilty. Not defending people accused of serious crimes is going to hurt poorer people way more than it'll hurt rich people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:So after multiple people distinguishing between privately hired lawyers and court appointed lawyers, you're just going to pretend that court appointed lawyers don't exist? People not having access to private lawyers is not an argument against a system being not a kangaroo court! Also is the concept is that someone who defends pedophiles and rapists in court is as bad as a pedophile or rapist then why are public defenders immune? They took the job knowing they'd be defending pedophiles too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Are there really that many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include helping rich assholes get away with horrible crimes? That opens the question of what public defenders are doing. They protect criminals and aren't highly paid. Is the idea that they just love crime so much they do it just for the love of rape being in the world? (which is again the reason why that whole lens is extremely stupid a way to view what trials are)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 17:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lol are we really pretending the motive of someone who charges $20,000 an hour to defend the rich isn't obvious. I’m not sure the concept defense lawyers support crime makes any sense at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:No you see rich people are an oppressed minority much like the gays. they are truly comparable when talking about legal representation. their status is entirely equivalent in this discussion. i am very smart Not a single person in this thread has said rich people are an oppressed minority. People have pointed out that historically minorities are the exact people that would not be happy only having access to only government issued defenders and that oppressed minorities are the exact people that historically would have been hurt the most if defending people simply accused of morally reprehensible crimes is a thing lawyers should be expected to avoid.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted: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. Because minorities are the exact people that will shoulder the negative effects of every single poorly thought out "THIS WILL FUCKCK THE RICH!!!" vengeance fantasy thing people keep making up on how to change court systems. Marginalized groups are the exact people that are harmed if you take away legal protections. If you have a plan on how you'd change the legal system to take away rights because it'd make rich people lose a case that is cool, but it's not gonna stick to just hurting the people you wanted and marginalized groups are going to be the primary recipients of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:What right is being taken away from the rich None, because no one is implementing any of the extremely bad ideas people in this thread have had on trials should work. But the reason people keep bringing up minorities is that suggestions on how to make trials worse would disproportionately harm the people that already are least well served.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:How do you feel about universal healthcare? Universal health care is real good but also historically does underserve certain minorities dramatically. Every system should be absolutely perfect at all times with no flaws, but they should also be designed to take account of what happens if they ever aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 12:47
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:We already have that result tho. good things includes systems that work as well as possible even when they fail. Especially when the ways they can fail are well understood. Having everything just be perfect forever with no mistakes would be best, but in times that it isn't you can control what second best options are available.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:"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" Improving things includes safety nets.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Like I think people who do crimes should be punished. Do crimes as determined by what? You just telling us because you just know inherently? Before the trial?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I think that people who might have done a murderer should go on trial for murder. Should lawyers shun them because they were accused of murder? What crimes can someone be accused of that make them untouchable? Should we have little mini courts to know if they are guilty or not to know if lawyers need to shun them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait I think I realized why OOCC and I are talking past each other. It honestly seems like you wouldn't care either way if he is guilty or innocent and your end goal is to make a Calvin ball system that lets you claim righteousness by supporting any bad idea as long as it has any side effect of harming anyone you personally dislike. Regardless of whoever else it might hurt or if the other people it hurts are people you'd otherwise use as props to pretend it's them you are standing for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:if that means an individual rich person gets treated unjustly (just like poor people are treated unjustly), because by aligning the interests of both rich and poor you create the will to reform the system and achieve more just outcomes for everyone. This seems like the crux, it seems like your idea is accelerationism, where if we simply made the court system unjust enough for everyone that some process would then lead to a just system. What is supposed to happen to everyone in trials that are neither in abject poverty or obscene wealth? They just gotta be sacrificed?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
The problem is that society hasn't evolved enough to the point you can just sit on a throne and tell us all what is good or bad unerringly so people have to make rules that generalize to cover both people you like and dislike.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Just to make the "more resources" angle clear -- imagine a case with a hundred thousand or so pages of medical records. Not uncommon. Is anyone anywhere in this thread arguing against more resources for public defenders? No one is arguing that public defenders shouldn't exist, just that they aren't the end all be all perfect solution to every single situation and won't ever be.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 14:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:https://www.jstor.org/stable/3053204?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents I can not possibly imagine you would support a study that said race had no effect on trial outcome, (which is why you edited that line out) so I assume you are again just grabbing whatever random thing says what you want at any given moment inconsistent with anything else you said.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:No one is being denied representation! At worst, we are denying private lawyers clients. your argument seems to be "*I* twodot can say this because I twodot am useless and not listened to by anyone so what I say is irrelevant" and that seems more like a personal problem than a point of any kind. Like I, OOCC could tell people the best treatment for a stroke is 74mg of emicizumab. And like, literally nothing would happen because the odds of anyone actually taking medical advice from me on a random drug is zero, so I could say it all day, I can tell you right now to take it, you definitely won't. but like, it's still a bad opinion that is factually wrong and would be fatal if someone listened. So I shouldn't say it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
twodot posted:Even if I were effective, public defenders still exist (and if I were effective public defenders would be much more supported), so in any case no one is being denied representation. Again, this seems to be you defending your right to have awful opinions based on you not being important enough for anything you think or do to matter. That is possibly true, but it's not how people normally discuss if things are good opinions. People are saying a world where lawyers were shamed/attacked/punished/whatever for defending people accused (not even convicted, just accused) of serious crimes would be extremely bad. No one really cares if you, specific nobody, shames anyone. As a random singular unimportant person literally no matter what opinion you have on anything it doesn't directly matter. If you say the melting point of zinc is 45 degrees then nothing bad happens, but your still wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, let's say I'm super successful and literally no one in the world will take Weinstein's money for anything. Public defenders should still represent Weinstein. Then what happens? How is that a better world? Is it better for the victims, weinstein? the PD? the lawyers? what?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:If we get to that point it feels like the prevalence of horrible monsters might go down. Again, I bet you are right on Harvey’s guilt, but you can’t possibly be so dumb as to not see the flaw in denying lawyers to people ACUSED of crimes on the public’s gut feeling on who’s good or bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
twodot posted:People should not volunteer to support horrible monsters. Sometimes you got to support horrible monsters so society will continue to function, like if a court appoints you to defend a horrible monster or you are an ER doctor, but when there is a choice as is the case with private defense lawyers, everyone should loudly and publicly decline to support the horrible monster. How, specifically do you know who’s a monster?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Would you like to argue that weinstein is not? Is asking me for my gut feeling supposed to be a system of justice?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
twodot posted:Choosing to support a horrible monster signals support in a way that being compelled to defend a horrible monster does not. Signaling support of horrible monsters is bad. Like, you, random nobody internet guy can call him whatever you want if nothing you do will ever matter. 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. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok for the purpose of this thread, it is my belief that exactly Weinstein should be shunned, and I'm not aware of any other people or circumstances that warrant it. Every accused rapist is accused of rape. What special thing did he do that doesn’t apply to anyone that would be in court at all?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
twodot posted:I would like people to agree that lawyers should be judged by their choices. The choice to.... associate with possible criminals?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 05:57 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Really not improving my view of lawyers when you invoke racism and antisemitism to defend a rich rapist tbqh. Sadly, we have no idea how to see in your heart so we really can't know if it'd turn out your gut declares more jews horrible monsters or not. Which is the flaw in this "trust me, I'd only declare the right people horrible monsters" system you are cooking up. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2019 02:25
|
|