Can you really encourage an alcoholic to take a drink? :think:
Okay, I admit you have a problem. Now what's the solution? I'm thinking bromide.
Just a System
- Thread starter serpentdove
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
unsurprisingly, the point once again escapes you
much like good genetics in the inbred south
ah well, it's prolly not the end of the world :idunno:
this will be my last replyCan you really encourage an alcoholic to take a drink? :think:
Okay, I admit you have a problem. Now what's the solution? I'm thinking bromide.
-do not want to appear to be encouraging you in what appears to be you encouraging him
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
now that's encouraging! :thumb:
Like blaming the guy who shot the mugger, but okay. He's going to follow me about and talk about or too me if I do or if I don't post in response. . . so mostly I do if I see a chance at levity and don't else. That's about the wrap on my interest. And given his starting point today...looks like the latter. See you around the joint.
:e4e:
So, your analogy, despite your claim to the contrary, was that lawyers are the gatekeepers of what is justice in our system. Or, if you want to get technical, one would have to put in the time and study the same as a lawyer to understand if the system was just or not. I remain skeptical.
I would definitely call our plea bargaining approach as a justice system less than transparent. That's an evil in itself.
If you're going to wait a month between replies you'll have to quote the analogy you think is somehow contradicted and set out why. Else, beans.
How do you mean?
Ah, then as a rule I'd say there's no point in getting older, time and experience and what we do with it not accruing sufficiently to convince you. But of course you'd get a medical opinion from a doctor and a legal opinion from a lawyer. Why? Because time and study do matter, to all of us...so you have this narrow, personal window. My window, even on the purely anecdotal end, will outstrip that by leaps and bounds. But more important is my understanding of the system, the law and studies about both. Now anyone can look at anything men do and find flaws, abuses, etc. Clergy occasionally pilfer the collection box and run off with the church secretary, politicians go to jail for corruption, and so on. But those aren't the rule and how we establish a rule, the metric, is important.
I don't know what you mean by that. It's clear to the parties involved.
Things you don't understand fully are evil in themselves?
I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member
Grouch.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Yeah, it's a real problem. I have a job that gets crazy busy for a few days sometimes and then I forget about responses on TOL.
That people can see the injustice in the system without being lawyers are training as much as lawyers. Your claim is that we cannot see that the system is, in general, unjust because we don't have the training to understand that what we see as general injustice is the opposite. I still remain skeptical.
Well, yes, of course if you want to play the system then a lawyer is a first rate choice. If you want justice - not so much.
Is the problem systemic? Let's see:
From Wiki: "A plea bargain (also plea agreement, plea deal, copping a plea, or plea in mitigation) is any agreement in a criminal case between the prosecutor and defendant whereby the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a particular charge in return for some concession from the prosecutor. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence." And plea bargains are about 90% of all the criminal cases in the US.
But this is really the tip of the iceberg. Bureaucrats can bend laws to a point that no one really knows what the law is. For instance, how many guns does it take to be a gun seller that requires an FFL? They don't say. The bureaucrat can make it up as he goes along and punish some people severely for doing nothing wrong in reality, but wrong by the letter of a law that no one can know.
And the problem is even bigger than that. It doesn't include the people that are afraid of a law that depends on the whim of a bureaucrat and so they don't do something out of the fear of tyranny which could well be described as "rule by whim, frequently harsh."
And then there are other vast injustices. Like prisons. And many of the drug laws. And welfare paid with taxes. They put laws into the system that are just plain wrong. In fact, a whole system based on situational law will always become more unjust as time goes by. A system based on principle would be much better.
Ignoring the euphemism, it is easy to entice a drunk into drinking when they are trying to quit. I know you didn't mean it that way, but that is what "alcoholic" is.
Life. Not a problem, but by that point I'm mostly recalling the framework, so without a quote I may just have to note we differ. I'm going into the next semester of grad school so I don't have a lot of time to invest and none to dig back at this point.
I think you don't have to be a lawyer to see what you believe is an injustice. You may be right. You may be misreading it. In any event, that's a bit different from making a blanket statement about the system.
'
I'm saying a bit more than that. I'm saying the system works, serves justice, is mostly right and does it better than any system on earth, that not only do we attempt to protect the innocent, but we have in place additional protections for review understanding that mistakes can and will be made, even if they mostly aren't.
That wasn't remotely responsive to my point. That's a bumper sticker. And it's not true, to boot.
Typically the plea may involve a lesser charge or, more often, in accepting the plea the prosecutor agrees to recommend a minimum or reduced sentence. Usually the rate is between 90 to 95%. There's nothing unjust in that. The time we attach as penalty typically has a min/max, so it's not circumventing the penalty phase. Plea bargaining frees up resources for the most violent offenses and saves the taxpayers a great deal of money, both in terms of the costs to prosecute and the potential need for additional courtrooms, judges and associated staff.
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
what is your deal with posting the F word ? This is the 2nd time in 5 days