Honest lawyer?

[WizardofOz]

because the system in which the israelites were enslaved by the egyptians was a corrupt system :duh:

Doesn't answer the question as to why Aaron spoke for Moses...

 

[Stripe]

:doh:

Why did Aaron first speak to Pharaoh rather than Moses?

:AMR:

Pass. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[ok doser]

Doesn't answer the question as to why Aaron spoke for Moses...

because the corrupt system they were confronting would have made it less likely that Moses would have been heard


why did God choose Moses instead of Aaron?

 

[WizardofOz]

:AMR:

Pass. :idunno:

Because Aaron was more skilled as an orator and Moses felt he was personally ineffectual in such a situation; pleading in defense of his people.

Knowledge (of the law) and ability (to argue or orate) are certainly skills. Do the passages in Exodus 4 not prove that they indeed are?

 

[Stripe]

Because Aaron was more skilled as an orator and Moses felt he was personally ineffectual in such a situation; pleading in defense of his people.

Knowledge (of the law) and ability (to argue or orate) are certainly skills. Do the passages in Exodus 4 not prove that they indeed are?

Luckily, I never argued that one man must not speak for another.

And are you really willing to take what the ancient Hebrews did as a model for what we should do?

Because if so...

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[WizardofOz]

Luckily, I never argued that one man must not speak for another.

How does a man who stands accused defend himself if he cannot speak well and has no one to speak for him?

Wouldn't it be good if he could pay someone to do this for him and if he could not pay :idea: such a person could be provided at no cost?

And are you really willing to take what the ancient Hebrews did as a model for what we should do?

Because if so...

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Being a lawyer takes knowledge and skill. Agree? If you disagree then, in general, how does a lawyer differ from how Aaron functioned for Moses in defense of his people?

 

[ok doser]

Luckily, I never argued that one man must not speak for another.

And are you really willing to take what the ancient Hebrews did as a model for what we should do?

Because if so...

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Or the Egyptian justice system as a model for our own

 

[Stripe]

How does a man who stands accused defend himself if he cannot speak well and has no one to speak for him?

:AMR:

How would anyone ever not be able to find someone to speak for them?

Wouldn't it be good if he could pay someone to do this for him and if he could not pay :idea: such a person could be provided at no cost?

He can do whatever he likes. :idunno:

Just don't pretend that paying lawyers is a good process for determining right and wrong.

Being a lawyer takes knowledge and skill. Agree? If you disagree then, in general, how does a lawyer differ from how Aaron functioned for Moses in defense of his people?

Lawyers get paid to defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent.

 

[ok doser]

.... in general, how does a lawyer differ from how Aaron functioned for Moses in defense of his people?

a (modern) lawyer takes money to argue whatever their client wishes them to argue - hence my characterization of them as amoral and psychopathic


Aaron spoke for Moses and indirectly, for God

i don't recall seeing anything in exodus about billable hours

 

[WizardofOz]

:AMR:

How would anyone ever not be able to find someone to speak for them?

Accused rapists, murderers, etc are not usually very popular. Would you 'speak for' someone accused of a heinous crime?

However, for those falsely accused, it's good that they have a chance at justice especially when they may be less than proficient at articulating their defense.

Just don't pretend that paying lawyers is a good process for determining right and wrong.

Paying only opens the free market for better counsel. What would you prefer if you were falsely accused of a serious crime, a public pretender provided at no cost or a lawyer who charges big bucks?

A good defense attorney and the cost associated with them is simply a result of an open market and supply and demand for free market services.

Lawyers get paid to defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent.

:AMR: And to defend those falsely accused and prosecute the guilty. It goes both ways.

 

[ok doser]

Accused rapists, murderers, etc are not usually very popular. Would you 'speak for' someone accused of a heinous crime?

However, for those falsely accused, it's good that they have a chance at justice especially when they may be less than proficient at articulating their defense.



Paying only opens the free market for better counsel. What would you prefer if you were falsely accused of a serious crime, a public pretender provided at no cost or a lawyer who charges big bucks?

A good defense attorney and the cost associated with them is simply a result of an open market and supply and demand for free market services.


:AMR: And to defend those falsely accused and prosecute the guilty. It goes both ways.

your Freudian slip is showing

 

[Arthur Brain]

Lawyers get paid to defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent.

No, Stripe, they don't. That's like saying an accountant is getting paid to cook the books. There's no objectivity or any sort of common sense on this subject with you is there?

:doh:

 

[ok doser]

Lawyers get paid to defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent.

No, Stripe, they don't.

you're probably wrong, but let's take a look at what stripe said

the first part of stripe's statement is "lawyers get paid to defend the guilty...."

i'm pretty sure that's true - pretty sure the lawyer on the right in the pic below got paid to defend the guilty party on the left:

the second part of stripe's statement is "Lawyers get paid to .... prosecute the innocent."

again, pretty sure that's true, unless you believe in every court case the accused is guilty

or you believe the prosecutor is not a lawyer

That's like saying ...

it's exactly like saying "Lawyers get paid to defend the guilty and prosecute the innocent"

 

[Stripe]

Accused rapists, murderers, etc are not usually very popular. Would you 'speak for' someone accused of a heinous crime?

If they were innocent? Sure.

Is your argument that we need the "status quo" because without it men might be wrongly convicted?

However, for those falsely accused, it's good that they have a chance at justice especially when they may be less than proficient at articulating their defense.

Evidence and justice do that. We don't need to pay lawyers.

What would you prefer if you were falsely accused of a serious crime, a public pretender provided at no cost or a lawyer who charges big bucks?

Neither.

I'd want good evidence and a good judge.

A good defense attorney and the cost associated with them is simply a result of an open market and supply and demand for free market services.

Justice is not served by leaving it to the free market. It requires Godly judges and good evidence.

And to defend those falsely accused and prosecute the guilty. It goes both ways.

It should not go both ways. Justice should only go one way: to the right.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Ktoyou]

A good defense attorney and the cost associated with them is simply a result of an open market and supply and demand for free market services.

Yes, free market is the way of this world. Now why do some think that can be confined to a local?

 

[WizardofOz]

your Freudian slip is showing

It was intentional

 

[WizardofOz]

If they were innocent? Sure.

The trial would decide guilt or innocence not the ability, or lack thereof, to obtain legal representation.

Is your argument that we need the "status quo" because without it men might be wrongly convicted?

Evidence and justice do that. We don't need to pay lawyers.

So your gripe isn't with lawyers per se, it's just that you feel they should volunteer their time. Is that accurate? I'm fine with the "status quo" where people are paid for their time, effort and knowledge in an open and free market.

Neither.

I'd want good evidence and a good judge.

And for the person who is unable to defend themselves? Is a juvenile defender or someone with diminished mental capacities (as examples) better off defending themselves or with someone more capable defending them? :think:

Justice is not served by leaving it to the free market. It requires Godly judges and good evidence.

Justice is not served expecting people to volunteer their time defending those accused of crimes when those individuals cannot defend themselves.

It should not go both ways. Justice should only go one way: to the right.

There are 4 possible realities in a criminal trial, agreed?
1. The innocent is prosecuted
2. The guilty is prosecuted
3. The innocent is defended
4. The guilty is defended

It's not about what "should". Without a crystal ball sometimes the innocent are sentenced and the guilty go free. This would happen in any legal system. The idea is to limit injustice.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The trial would decide guilt or innocence not the ability, or lack thereof, to obtain legal representation.

If someone commits a crime, he is guilty already.

But we presume innocence until proven guilty in court.

So your gripe isn't with lawyers per se, it's just that you feel they should volunteer their time. Is that accurate?

Nope. Not even close.

There should be no need for lawyers, because the law should be simple enough for ALL to understand.

I'm fine with the "status quo" where people are paid for their time, effort and knowledge in an open and free market.

So am I. Just not when it comes to justice.

Justice is not a commodity to be bought and sold like chattel. It is a fundamental requirement of a civilized society.

And for the person who is unable to defend themselves?

Then the evidence should speak for itself.

Hence the two or three witnesses...

Is a juvenile defender or someone with diminished mental capacities (as examples) better off defending themselves or with someone more capable defending them? :think:

A juvenile or someone who is mentally retarded would presumably have a parent or guardian who watches over them and cares for them, someone whom they are dependent on.

Why you exclude them from the equation is beyond me.

Justice is not served expecting people to volunteer their time defending those accused of crimes when those individuals cannot defend themselves.

If someone cannot defend themselves, then the evidence/witnesses (not necessarily eyewitnesses) should be enough to convict or acquit the accused.

No need for lawyers at all.

:liberals: Meaningless gibberish

:AMR:

 

[Stripe]

The trial would decide guilt or innocence not the ability, or lack thereof, to obtain legal representation.

Not in reality. Only within the system you are defending. In reality, a dude is either innocent or guilty at all times.

Regardless, this is contrary to your question. You asked whether I would speak for an innocent man. I can't speak for him at a trial under the conditions you've set out here.

Your gripe isn't with lawyers.

What do you call a busload of lawyers going off a cliff?

You feel they should volunteer their time. Is that accurate?

No. They can charge as much as they like.

My issue is with the government, which says justice requires lawyers and their regulations.

I'm fine with the "status quo" where...

justice is rare enough to be called non-existant.

And for the person who is unable to defend themselves? Is a juvenile defender or someone with diminished mental capacities (as examples) better off defending themselves or with someone more capable defending them?

You keep asking these questions as if I have said such people should not be allowed to seek help or even be given it by the state.

I haven't said any such thing.

Justice is not served expecting people to volunteer their time defending those accused of crimes when those individuals cannot defend themselves.

That's nice.

When you find someone saying that it is, you'll have my support.

Meanwhile, justice is served by two things.

There are 4 possible realities in a criminal trial, agreed?
1. The innocent is prosecuted
2. The guilty is prosecuted
3. The innocent is defended
4. The guilty is defended

Two of those have been institutionalized when they are obviously evil.

It's not about what "should".

Of course it is. Justice should be served.

The idea is to limit injustice.

Then you should reject the "status quo." :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[WizardofOz]

There should be no need for lawyers, because the law should be simple enough for ALL to understand.

So, this isn't really even about lawyers for you. It's about your desire to do away with our entire legal system as we know it.

I am curious. What should the law look like? Just simpler or Mosaic Law? What is your ideal?

Justice is not a commodity to be bought and sold like chattel. It is a fundamental requirement of a civilized society.

Which is why a lawyer is offered to those accused of crimes at no cost if they cannot afford one. It's a part of Miranda Rights, recited upon every arrest.

It just so happens that like everything else, you get what you pay for.

Then the evidence should speak for itself.

Hence the two or three witnesses...

I certainly feel for anyone framed in your system. It would probably be pretty easy to frame someone for a crime, especially those of a limit mental capacity. Is it two or three by the way?

A juvenile or someone who is mentally retarded would presumably have a parent or guardian who watches over them and cares for them, someone whom they are dependent on.

There is your problem

There are plenty of children and individuals with mental handicaps that do not. Why presume they would? And, if they don't, and are accused of a crime, they probably need a lawyer to defend them. Don't you think?

How were all these people wrongly convicted? :think:

Two or three witnesses you say?

Spoiler

On April 8, 1986, in Lake Elsinore, a female clerk was working at a shoe store when, sometime between 11:30 AM and 12:00 PM, she was raped and robbed at gunpoint. During the rape, the assailant ejaculated and wiped semen onto her sweater.

Investigation and Trial

Following the rape, the victim was taken to the hospital where vaginal swabs were collected. Her clothing, including the sweater with the semen stains, was collected and marked for identification.

She then went to the police station and was shown yearbooks from a nearby high school but was unable to find her assailant. In fact, she did not identify Atkins until she saw a wanted poster for him on unrelated charges, and was then shown a photo lineup where she identified Atkins as her assailant witness #1. A witness who worked at the store next to where the rape occurred was shown the wanted poster with Atkins’ picture and identified him as a man who had been in her store earlier that day witness #2.

At trial, in addition to the eyewitness identifications, the prosecution proffered testimony from a criminalist with a state laboratory, who testified that the semen found on swabs was deposited by someone with blood type A and PGM 2+1+, which are consistent with Atkins’ typing witness #3.

Atkins was charged with robbery and rape and sentenced to forty-five years in prison.

Post-Conviction Investigation​

Atkins’ case was accepted by the Innocence Project in 1993. After locating the sweater and vaginal swabs in 1995, the Innocence Project began trying to gain access to the evidence for DNA testing, which was granted in 1999.

After receiving the specimens, Forensic Science Associates performed DNA testing on the evidence collected at the crime scene. Testing was conducted on three separate areas of the sweater. In all three areas, the results were consistent and excluded Atkins.

Based on the test results, Herman Atkins was released from prison in February 2000, after spending twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit.