|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Actually it kind of is. If you can swing public opinion heavily against somebody because they defended a bad person then you end up with public optics being part of the consideration to defend somebody.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:People not having access to private lawyers is not an argument against a system being not a kangaroo court!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
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. edit: Like if this person was hired on to Weinstein's personal fire suppression team would you be in here saying "Being on Weinstein's personal fire suppression team is really no different than being a fire fighter who has to put out everyone's fires"?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Or maybe they aren’t either good or bad because lawyers are not responsible for what their clients do. Dead Reckoning posted:If a rapist gets the charges gains him dismissed, because his lawyer gets the overwhelming physical evidence against him thrown out, because the police gathered the evidence in the course of an illegal, warrantless search, is this a Good thing, or a Bad thing? Does it matter whether the lawyer was a PD, Pro Bono, or paid?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If the lawyer decided to defend a rapist because even rapists are entitled to a defense, would that be good?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
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. edit: wateroverfire posted:Should lawyers NOT want to get paid? Should doctors? Should everyone?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 20:54
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Is it immoral to choose the defendant who can pay over the defendant who cannot if they are equally deserving of a defense?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In any field there are always so many more clients who can't pay than clients who can. =(
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Why? edit: Ogmius815 posted:But because not everyone in the country agrees with your standards of behavior, that’s going to make it harder for some people you probably do like to get fair legal representation. twodot fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That’s an official doctrine of legal ethics, by the way. quote:Lawyers are not morally responsible for the positions they take on behalf of their clients. quote:That reason is that we want people who society disapproves of to be able to obtain legal representation. edit: Ogmius815 posted:No not really. Because the context of this remark is about divorce attorneys (the poster up thread said that divorce attorneys who represent abusive husbands are bad). Nobody gets a free divorce attorney just because they’re poor. You ether pay for one or you don’t get one. Eh, actually I think the argument still works. If being a horrible monsters make it hard to find an attorney, and not having money makes it hard to find an attorney, then I'm basically always much more interested in fixing the "not having money makes it hard to find an attorney" first and we can let the horrible monsters participate in whatever system we have for people with no money. If that system is "welp you don't get to have an attorney", then I'm unclear why I'm supposed to care that this system is being applied to horrible monsters and poor people. twodot fucked around with this message at 21:34 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Then you’re missing my point, which is that if we make the rule that a lawyer should face social opprobrium for representing clients that society finds to be nasty, it will be harder for all of society’s outsiders to obtain good representation. twodot posted:Eh, actually I think the argument still works. If being a horrible monsters make it hard to find an attorney, and not having money makes it hard to find an attorney, then I'm basically always much more interested in fixing the "not having money makes it hard to find an attorney" first and we can let the horrible monsters participate in whatever system we have for people with no money. If that system is "welp you don't get to have an attorney", then I'm unclear why I'm supposed to care that this system is being applied to horrible monsters and poor people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don’t know if that’s a good idea or not. I note, however, that it’s actually something of a leap from “no lawyer should face social condemnation because he represented a misbehaving client in an ugly case” to “no lawyer should ever have to opportunity to turn down any client”.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
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? twodot posted:You are either comfortable with the ability of people with no money to obtain good representation in which case I propose outsiders can use that system and still obtain good representation. Or you are not comfortable with that in which case we clearly need to fix the ability of people with no money to obtain good representation and worry about horrible monsters with money later.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I absolutely and completely agree that we need to do more to help people get affordable quality legal representation. My entire point is that the practice of punishing a lawyer socially because you don’t like his client will only exacerbate this problem.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It’s interesting to note the set of priorities that’s clear from this post. It’s fine to make it harder for poor and vulnerable people to obtain legal representation if we can just stick it to rich people and their lawyers a bit. I don’t agree at all and I’m sure glad you aren’t in charge of anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You’ve stopped bothering to engage with my point.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:Public defenders aren't the only lawyers who will represent poor people and minorities (ethnic, sexual, etc).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Let’s say that ten minutes after the end of Philadelphia Denzel goes to his church. At the risk of buying into a dangerous stereotype, let’s say this church’s congregation doesn’t like gay people very much and isn’t very concerned about protecting the rights of people with AIDS (it is the ‘80s after all). So now Denzel’s pastor confronts him for representing that gay AIDS patient (Hanks) in his employment discrimination suit against his old law firm alleging that they fired him because he had AIDS.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I mean, presumably we’re trying to decide which rule is best, the rule that lawyers should be judged for their clients, or the rule that they should not be. Denzel is in a better position under the second rule, so I argue it is better in this case. edit: Like if I say "People should be judged by their actions" it is not a valid counter argument to say "Under that rule some people will judge gay people as bad". Obviously I'm imagining a specific set of actions that are judgment worthy. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So trying to make rules for ethics is pointless because not everyone will follow them. Hmm. Ogmius815 posted:If, on the other hand, everyone follows he moral rule I prefer, there will be no problem. Except of course, for the problem that it’ll be harder for Twitter mobs and self righteous teenagers to get people fired. What a shame.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm still not clear whether you're arguing from an outcomes based ethics, or an intentions based one. quote:Except that exception makes no sense. If you're arguing from an outcomes based perspective, whether the lawyer is pro bono or paid makes no difference as to whether a dirt bag gets off, and if you're arguing from an intent perspective, getting paid for your work doesn't inherently corrupt your good intent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But surely if a defendant was so repulsive and obviously guilty that anyone assisting in their defense deserves to be a social pariah, any PD assigned to the case ought to refuse to participate as a matter of principle, since the result would be a dirt bag evading justice. quote:I feel like the argument you're really making is that it is unfair that the poor have to resort to overworked PDs, while the rich can afford to hire fancy criminal lawyers, but you don't want to contend with all the problems that abolishing the private practice of criminal law would cause.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So why is it bad if people get paid to provide that defense? What is the principle at stake here? What bad outcome are you trying to avoid by people choosing to represent Harvey Weinstein instead of being forced to do it or lose their jobs?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:you will have to convince the community at large that your exact sense of morality is correct in a particular situation. That is a monumentally more difficult task than simply convincing them of a principle which is already a fundamental and widely acknowledge principle of legal ethics which is that a lawyer is not morally responsible for his clients and the positions he takes on their behalf. edit: Also we should be pushing the "gay people aren't bad" agenda anyways. If your response is "What if assholes weaponize parts of your moral systems?" the answer is "We should teach them not to be assholes" twodot fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The whole point of societal ethics is to create a system of behavior that, when people follow it, produces acceptable outcomes even if the various parties don't agree on what "good" is. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" and all that. You and VitalSigns seem to think that there is no point in behaving ethically if other people don't, which defeats the whole idea of having ethics in the first place. edit: Also "acceptable outcomes", I've got bad news for you there is no alternate reality you can nope out to if you don't accept outcomes. Outcomes just loving happen, your only choice is sort them into good and bad and react accordingly. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You've missed the whole point. Before doing or suggesting something, you should stop and think, "if everyone acted in this way, would I find the outcome acceptable?" So the calculus is "if everyone tried to pressure lawyers into avoiding clients they disapproved of, how would that go?" not "If everyone shamed the lawyers I think are Bad, then that would obviously be Good, because my opinions on right and wrong are objectively correct and ought to be universal."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:And tearing down the criminal defense bar is supposed to make things better? How asinine. Maybe give public defender services the resources and staff they need to give their clients the zealous advocacy they deserve. Maybe give people in administrative and civil proceedings a right to court-appointed counsel.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:The final and absolute worst of your mistakes is that political power comes from the top down, when in reality it comes from the bottom up. We don't need to threaten rich people into reforming mass incarceration by trying to threaten them with it themselves. At that point, we can just abolish it for everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:even the best prosecutor is more of a scumbag than the worst defense attorney, because their client is the united states, which is much worse than nasty harvey twodot posted:Even if this is true, aren't you just arguing that if judging lawyers for their clients did anything we'd be able to do the revolution, and since we aren't judging lawyers for their clients doesn't actually do anything, in which case why spending any time caring about the fact that I'm saying "Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags"? Describe to us the actual practical impact of saying "Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags" and then why we should care about it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:arguing that criminal defense attorneys are scumbags for representing criminals directly contributes to the reactionary dirty harry law and order ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its a fun hypothetical, but a functional impossibility. There are tens of thousands of private criminal defense attorneys in every state, and so far society hasn't succeeded yet in shaming them all into refusing to represent people who are likely guilty. edit: To be clear when I say Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags, I am in no way demanding you agree with me, just that that is a thing I believe, and I'm going to continue to believe and say it, unless someone can actually connect that statement to some sort of harm I should care about. blarzgh posted:What if you learned that hiring a private attorney versus using a public defender didn't materially change the outcome for a defendant? And also, what if you learned that people who had enough money to hire a private criminal defense attorney were not eligible for the public defender, thus forced to spend their own money? twodot fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:To the OP's initial premise and question: No, based on the universal principle of non-identification, it is a fundamental tenet of a justice system that lawyers are not judged for their clients. edit: blarzgh posted:Everyone deserves representation, and its immoral, short-sighted, and childish to chide or diminish the work that people do on behalf of anyone who's entitled to that representation. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I don't need to do anything of the sort. I said it is a fundamental tenet of a justice system, and as such it is extremely easy to read up about. I don't think I'm obligated to even attempt to condense it all down to several pages of post on the off chance you'll actually accept anything I write in good faith (which you won't, because let's face it you're not gonna), when really the onus is on you to go out and pick up a book. The question the OP posed has an answer. quote:As far as I can gather the point of the lawyer shamers itt, that is exactly the consequence of your view that blarzgh is talking about. I don't think he needs to repeat himself any further, because he's absolutely correct.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The harm: if society gets more and more comfortable with the idea of denying people we "don't like" with representation, eventually society will earn itself the power to deny representation for people we "don't like."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
Indeterminacy posted:The conversation has gotten a bit weird. So let's make a thesis statement: Weinstein's lawyers woke up one day and said "How should I spend my time? I know I will defend a wealthy and powerful horrible rapist because he can pay me loads of money" Public defenders woke up one day and said "How should I spend my time? I know I will defend any client that crosses my desk, wealthy or not, guilty or not, horrible monster or not, because I want to work to achieve the principle that everyone deserves representation" I do not need books to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys here. blarzgh posted:I mean, at this point all your saying is, "Today, I, and most of the people I interact, with think Rich People are bad, so I don't care about eroding legal and social protections for everyone so long as it hurts those god drat Rich People right now." twodot fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted: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. edit: Dead Reckoning posted:So what exactly is the point of casting social opprobrium at Weinstein's lawyers if not to discourage anyone from representing him and thereby deny him counsel? twodot fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Jun 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So by representing Weinstein they are being bad, and the bad thing you want them to do less of is "represent Weinstein against criminal allegations", so I'm not really clear what the distinction you're trying to draw here is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2019 21:22
|
|