This lawyer's headed for hell.

[musterion]

I saw this on You-Tube earlier this morning and what stood out to me was the fact that this Attorney claimed, not to KNOW the character of the accused rapist, however, was assuming he KNEW the character of the alleged victim.

When I saw it, I took it that he was admitting what is a common fact: a defense attorney must always be willing to smear the accuser no matter who it is...especially the more guilty his client looks.

Remember how Clinton laughed about how she treated that girl that got raped? Same thing.

 

[JudgeRightly]

What could that lawyer possibly hope to achieve by going on that program?

I have more respect for Prosecution Lawyers.

Then you have it backwards.
See, our system only works right

Our system doesn't work at all. If it did, we wouldn't have the crime epidemic we have today.

if the accused gets a vigorous, competent, defence.

Defending a criminal of a crime makes you guilty of aiding and abetting a criminal. If someone is innocent, the evidence will speak for itself to that effect. If a man is guilty, he will be condemned by the evidence. If he is innocent of a crime, then the evidence will vindicate him.

Which means someone has to be the defence lawyer and as such must defend some pretty unsavory scumbags.

Incorrect. No lawyers are needed in a good justice system for the reasons I just stated.

It's easy to be the good guy Prosecutor,

The prosecutor should be the victim, the one against whom the crime was committed.

people conflate the defence lawyer with the defendant.

And rightly so. Defending a criminal makes you guilty of, at the very least, attempting to aid and abet a suspected criminal.

Defence Lawyers are doing us a public service by making sure that the scumbag doesn't get off on a technicality later. Without defence lawyers we have nothing but a kangaroo court.

Defence Lawyers are not needed for justice to be served. If the evidence shows that someone committed a crime, then the Judge sentences the person to be punished, by restitution, corporal punishment, or death. If an error is made, then the Judge is blamed for that error and punished for it. All the more reason for the Judge to make a good judgment.

 

[musterion]

Am I going to hell for being a fan of Perry Mason?

No, only for being a fan of Matlock.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Of course not. True justice would be for the victim to be put in exactly the place and state they would have found themselves but for the actions of the wrong doer. No earthly court can give you that. All a court can do is punish the violator and attempt to make the injured party whole again. It's necessarily imperfect.

Agreed.

The reason for plea deals is simple, certain punishment in uncertain outcomes

There should be no mercy shown by Judges. Plea deals are acts of mercy.

and because it would take a great deal more of a tax bite out of the average citizen to fund the alternative.

Good punishments for crime do not affect the rest of society at all, they only punish the criminal, not the victim.

If a man steals? He should pay restitution.
If a man assaults another man? He should be flogged.
If a man murders another man or rapes a woman, he should be executed.

Restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty are the only forms of punishment that do not extend to the rest of society.

Putting someone in jail or prison because of a crime as punishment for it only harms society, with minimal impact on the criminal. Even the victim, indirectly through paying taxes in our current state, is punished because their tax money goes to fund the care of criminals in prison. How is that "just"? Simply put, it's not.

What maniac murderer were you thinking of who got off with a light sentence and by what standard?

Here's a pretty good treatment on the subject from the Californian Law Review for you to ignore.

The only opinion I care about when it comes to law and criminal justice is God's opinion. If it doesn't line up with what He says, then "let God be true and every man a liar."

 

[musterion]

Lawyers are meant to go strictly by law, and not justice.
Justice is blind when it comes to the law.

 

[musterion]

All men stand equal in right and presumption before her and the law.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's why Lawyers always say stuff like "My client maintains his innocence."

Of course they would say that, because any admission of guilt would be evidence against them.

If a man commits a crime, he is guilty from the moment he attempts to commit it. (He is sinning by planning on committing a crime, but that's a topic for another discussion, and is not appropriate here.) A criminal saying he is innocent is lying. Let the evidence show who is innocent and who is guilty. When it comes down to it though, the final verdict rests with the Judge who presides over the case (in a good justice system, not the one we have today).

 

[JudgeRightly]

Lmao: their job is to make money.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

The reason people say we have the best legal system in the world is because we have the highest paid lawyers in the world. But if we really did have the best system, why do we also have such a crime epidemic in this country?

 

[JudgeRightly]

When I saw it, I took it that he was admitting what is a common fact: a defense attorney must always be willing to smear the accuser no matter who it is...especially the more guilty his client looks.

Remember how Clinton laughed about how she treated that girl that got raped? Same thing.

http://shadowgov.com/Clinton/clinton.html

 

[musterion]

http://shadowgov.com/Clinton/clinton.html

Broaddrick says that after his ejaculation, Clinton told her not to worry about becoming pregnant for he had the mumps when he was a child and that he was sterile. Juanita first publicly told of Clinton’s claim of sterility in 1999 when Chelsea was about 20 years old.

That would explain this.

 

[ok doser]

People who defend or assist criminals knowingly and willingly are called accomplices. They should be punished as if they themselves committed the crime.

:thumb:

He should have been executed after being found guilty of murder. The lawyer too, for helping him get away with murder.

:thumb::thumb:

Our system doesn't work at all. If it did, we wouldn't have the crime epidemic we have today.

no, our system works, in that it achieves its intended (if unstated) goal

a system for increasing the wealth of those scumbags who choose to become lawyers

 

[Town Heretic]

If we had an actual "Justice" system, we wouldn't need either of them.

Heck, in some places all you need is a mob and a rope, but outside of the literal judgment of God I think you're wrong.

Yet case after case we see that "justice" is rarely served, only a cheap imitation of it.

We really don't, which is why most cases stand on appeal.

Juries are also not needed in an actual Justice system. They make it so that no one is held accountable for their decision, meaning no one is obligated to make a good decision.

No, juries make it less likely that you'll pay for the bias or well intentioned mistake of one judge.

When everyone does their jobs in the just-a-system we have, justice comes at random, and victory is random for either side.

You only think that because you don't have a real understanding of the system, which is why you lean on that bumper sticker hyphenation.

For example:

- OJ Simpson
- Scott Peterson
- Bill Clinton
- And many others.

When you have over 100,000 cases in a year in federal court alone, you're going to easily find examples where the verdict is arguable. That's why we have a system of appeals. But you don't establish the rule by anecdote. The vast majority of cases brought before the bar end with an outcome that remains. And most appeals end with the outcome sustained.

"Justice is incidental to law and order" - J. Edgar Hoover
"A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer" - Robert Frost

Hoover was certainly entitled to his opinion, but that's all it reduces too. Frost was a fine poet. A pithy statement isn't necessarily true simply because it suits and sustains your bias. If you want to exhibit proof it takes argument and authority, fact and reason.

The lawyer's FIRST mistake was becoming a lawyer in the first place.

That's a real knee slapper in some circles, I imagine. And that's how people who find that inspired tend to think...in circles.

Freedom of speech is a God-given right, regardless of what a government or legal system says about it

Go give Putin a piece of your mind and then get back to me when or if you get the actual point I made.

 

[patrick jane]

That's a real knee slapper in some circles, I imagine. And that's how people who find that inspired tend to think...in circles.

:rotfl:

 

[ok doser]

... end with an outcome that remains.

:doh:


that remains what?


flawed?

corrupt?

immoral?



do us all a favor: https://www.amazon.com/Writing-Reference-Guides-Rhetoric-Composition/dp/1602351740

 

[Town Heretic]

Prosecutors want to find people guilty,

No, they want the trier of fact to find them guilty, because before they bring charges they've established to their own satisfaction that the person they mean to charge is guilty and the elements required to prove that guilt are established. And that's as it should be.

no matter how obvious the reality may be that they are innocent.

All sorts of obvious things become anything but when the facts are heard.

The courts are not on your side, and lawyers are counter that.

That's irrational. Lawyers are on both sides of the question. If no one in a courtroom is on your side you must be the fool who has taken himself for a client. That sort of thing.

America's Puritanism still bleeds through the judicial system- if you aren't guilty of the crime, surely you've done something to warrant punishment anyway!

No, but there's a note of truth in it relating to judges, which is why few criminal defense attorneys will ever allow a judge to decide the outcome of a trial. Judges (and most lawyers) who understand the process also understand that the rule is if someone is charged with a crime, has had the matter billed, the chances are they're guilty. It's hard not to become jaded on that side of it. It's one reason juries are a great idea.

 

[musterion]

Prosecutors want to find people guilty, no matter how obvious the reality may be that they are innocent. The courts are not on your side, and lawyers are counter that.

America's Puritanism still bleeds through the judicial system- if you aren't guilty of the crime, surely you've done something to warrant punishment anyway!

Couldn't stay away, could you.

 

[ok doser]

Lawyers are on both sides of the question.

:think:

lawyers are inherently amoral**

** which makes them, in general, disgusting scumbags who should be fed into wood chippers

 

[musterion]

:think:

















** which makes them, in general, disgusting scumbags who should be fed into wood chippers

Alright man, I like you and all but this really has gone too far and you need called out on this. You are out of line.

Exactly what is it you have against wood chippers?

 

[musterion]

Not anymore than you could resist your obnoxious signature :wave2:

Keep on being the dirtbag, we'd be disappointed if you changed.

 

[musterion]

I can think of many examples of dirt bags.

For one, a person who takes joy in furthering to ridicule people who are treated improperly just so they can syringe their selves with a daily fix of applaud.

Like when you were hating on Jews, right?