|
If the stats show private counsel is statistically worse than a PD, shouldn't we be trying to get everyone a PD
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:If the stats show private counsel is statistically worse than a PD, shouldn't we be trying to get everyone a PD probably but do we really need to rush to make sure horrible rich people have the best legal representation when they're so busy throwing their money away poo poo it probably stimulates the economy
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 20:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well slacktivist posturing is what you're doing now, so either (1) you do believe that it does something useful in which case great then I too am doing something useful or (2) you don't believe it does something useful but you do think it's not actively bad or harmful in which case great then I too am not doing something actively bad or harmful so there's no problem. The point is not that slacktivist posturing is wrong, and therefore goo goo gah gah you're a bad person. That's your brand of sophistry, not mine. The point is your non-viable worldview can't survive the outdoors, which closes every avenue other than moral preening and political deferrals. You can post on the internet and appear to others as someone who moves through a corrupt system uncompromised, because no one can prove you're lying. People who actually do things--say, as defense attorneys--have no such luxury, which is both why they have absolutely no reason to be moved by your appeals and nothing to learn from your infantile math on the balance of right and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
Woozy posted:The point is not that slacktivist posturing is wrong, and therefore goo goo gah gah you're a bad person. That's your brand of sophistry, not mine. The point is your non-viable worldview can't survive the outdoors, which closes every avenue other than moral preening and political deferrals. You can post on the internet and appear to others as someone who moves through a corrupt system uncompromised, because no one can prove you're lying. People who actually do things--say, as defense attorneys--have no such luxury, which is both why they have absolutely no reason to be moved by your appeals and nothing to learn from your infantile math on the balance of right and wrong. ok but anyone in power can make this argument that people who aren't them just don't understand what it's like. Maybe a parallel justice system that caters to the rich and operates by completely different rules of money and influence and connections than the justice system the rest of us face is a really really lucrative deal and really hard to pass up! I'm willing to bet it is for the people who benefit from it, I just don't care because I think it's bad that they benefit from it. wateroverfire posted:The thing is people are REALLY, REALLY BAD at doing this and tend to rush to judgements that are ultimately wrong. When something really inflamatory is involved you can basically forget about people making reasoned decisions about anybody's motives. That is why it is so important to have a culture around legal representation that insulates judges, lawyers, jurers, and etc from those judgements as much as possible. OK and sometimes their judgments are right. If I am right then it doesn't matter if someone else is irrational and wrong about some other situation, they will be irrational and wrong regardless of what I say now. If I am wrong then you should give me reasons that I have misjudged him and not just appeal to the fact that I am human and capable of error because that's not very useful. I am human and capable of error when I am right, and I am still a human and capable of error when I am wrong. Hieronymous Alloy posted:You don't increase funding for public defenders by stigmatizing the legal defense of criminals. If the argument is that if I say Sullivan is bad and public defenders are good, and someone else decides to lie about my position and say "I'm going to attack public defenders now because VitalSigns said they are bad" then the problem is not with my position, the problem is with the person lying about my position. And also with that person appealing to my authority instead of considering my reasoning. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 20:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If I am right then it doesn't matter if someone else is irrational and wrong about some other situation, they will be irrational and wrong regardless of what I say now. If I am wrong then you should give me reasons that I have misjudged him and not just appeal to the fact that I am human and capable of error because that's not very useful. I am human and capable of error when I am right, and I am still a human and capable of error when I am wrong. The point is not about whether you're right or wrong about a particular person. The point is that people in general, and you in particular but again not the point, are really bad at making these determinations. Even more bad when the subject is emotional. So we ought to have a legal system in which the feels people have about a thing don't impact the course of justice. Everyone who ever joined a lynch mob thought they were doing the right thing and making the right judgement, and that the scumbag lawyer of that scumbag <whatever the person was accused of doing> was just going to get them off and so they'd better use SOCIAL PRESSURE to get the right result. It's not justice when a lynch mob does it and it's not justice when the internet mob does the slacktivist version of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
But to the point...yes you're actually wrong about whether Sullivan is a scumbag or not, and you can look at his incredibly long history of prior cases as support for that. He's an exemplary defense attorney who has worked for rich and poor clients alike.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:The point is not about whether you're right or wrong about a particular person. The point is that people in general, and you in particular but again not the point, are really bad at making these determinations. Even more bad when the subject is emotional. So we ought to have a legal system in which the feels people have about a thing don't impact the course of justice. I agree, unfortunately we have a system in which feels people have about a thing (money, power, celebrity, connections) impact the course of justice. wateroverfire posted:Everyone who ever joined a lynch mob thought they were doing the right thing and making the right judgement, and that the scumbag lawyer of that scumbag <whatever the person was accused of doing> was just going to get them off and so they'd better use SOCIAL PRESSURE to get the right result. I disagree that social disapproval is the same as a lynching. I mean, Weinstein hasn't been convicted of anything yet right? Therefore I guess it would be wrong not to let him produce films, and for actresses to refuse to work with him because that would be social disapproval and he would face consequences for his actions that weren't judged by a jury of his peers and I guess that's the same as a lynching? I don't know about you but I don't think we should wait for a verdict on Kevin Spacey before we say "nah this guy isn't teaching 14-year-old boys acting lessons anymore" even if he's acquitted I'm going to say that people who refuse to associate with him aren't taking the law into their own hands. wateroverfire posted:But to the point...yes you're actually wrong about whether Sullivan is a scumbag or not, and you can look at his incredibly long history of prior cases as support for that. He's an exemplary defense attorney who has worked for rich and poor clients alike. Nah that doesn't prove anything, even scumbag attorneys sometimes take cases I agree with and do pro bono work (aren't they pretty much required to do pro bono work). I'm glad he represented Michael Brown's family, but greed is still bad and the guy who said #MeToo is a female plot to bring down men is still an rear end in a top hat. Fred Phelps, Sr took cases I agreed with for rich and poor clients alike, that does not mean everything else he did in his life must have been good!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The only consistent thing in this thread has been the whiplash speed at which the posters in it can jump from position to moderately modified position. Whiplash at moderate modifications seems contradictory. Regardless, I'm sure the strawman looked real after seeing dozens of others attack it, but it never was. I think what you're calling modifications are actually people refuting claims that they've taken a position they haven't taken, ever. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:ok but anyone in power can make this argument that people who aren't them just don't understand what it's like. Maybe a parallel justice system that caters to the rich and operates by completely different rules of money and influence and connections than the justice system the rest of us face is a really really lucrative deal and really hard to pass up! I'm willing to bet it is for the people who benefit from it, I just don't care because I think it's bad that they benefit from it. It's not just people in power. Everyone gets the doctor's note, if you're being even remotely honest about it. Everyone is a product of their environment, making the best of what they have, they were stressed that day, their mother was controlling, their father was a drunk, they didn't know better, hormones, mental illness, culture of whatever, prescription meds, mortages, mouths to feed, jobs to do, bosses to answer to. That's why focusing on the actions of any one individual is pointless and counter-productive, as is dragging politics down to this abysmal level of on-brand do-good-ery. If your issue is with the professional class, take it up with the whole. Don't feign concern about the system as an argument for vaporizing [some guy].
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:If the stats show private counsel is statistically worse than a PD, shouldn't we be trying to get everyone a PD I wouldnt be surprised if the stats did show that, and I dont think making sure everyone has to use PD would change it much. The well off dont just benefit from being able to hire expensive lawyers, they are also less likely to be the subject of a prosecutor trying to pad their conviction numbers and general presumptions about their guilt sans concrete evidence. I think the more prominent or wealthy the individual, the more likely the prosecution is going to take the extra time to make sure they can get a conviction before deciding to take the case forward, and they will be more likely to have a weak case against them dropped (versus some poor person barely making ends meet who will be forced to make a plea deal to keep from losing everything).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
Woozy posted:That's why focusing on the actions of any one individual is pointless and counter-productive, as is dragging politics down to this abysmal level of on-brand do-good-ery. If your issue is with the professional class, take it up with the whole. OK I will take it up with the whole. I may something like "this group of people are doing something bad that is causing all sorts of terrible consequences for society, here is an example of one guy doing that right now" zeroprime posted:I wouldnt be surprised if the stats did show that, and I dont think making sure everyone has to use PD would change it much. The well off dont just benefit from being able to hire expensive lawyers, they are also less likely to be the subject of a prosecutor trying to pad their conviction numbers and general presumptions about their guilt sans concrete evidence. I think the more prominent or wealthy the individual, the more likely the prosecution is going to take the extra time to make sure they can get a conviction before deciding to take the case forward, and they will be more likely to have a weak case against them dropped (versus some poor person barely making ends meet who will be forced to make a plea deal to keep from losing everything). "If we fix problem A, problem B will still exist" is an argument in favor of going "okay in addition to fixing problem A let's identify what to do about problem B and fix that too", it's not an argument to go "well let's do nothing about A" It's possible problem B is intractable and the answer is "do nothing to fix problem B", but that's still a reason not to fix problem A. E: actually a well-funded universal PD system should help with this. If prosecutors are reluctant to press weaker cases against the ultra-rich because they are more likely to lose and it will hurt their conviction rates, then giving everyone the resources to fight weak cases will make prosecutors less likely to press weak cases against the non-rich. Or at least if everyone's resources were the same then income would not be a factor in prosecutors' estimation of how tough the defense is going to be. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jun 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Great news! That's not actually true! Oh for what it's worth know I didn't know any of this at all and it really does seem to highlight why making assumptions about why attorneys would rep a client is real real dumb
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can claim that the legal system is wrong and ought to change to match the idealized system you have come up with in your head. But you need to be prepared to be specific about your proposed system and to deal with criticism of its flaws. Cool and if I'm poor I can't even try and will get steamrolled, but I guess rich people losing occasionally makes that okay
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
Woozy posted:The lawyer is one the setting the fee, you dipshit, not Weinstein. And if his fee has to account for the wrath of the mob then he may as well only represent the richest clients he can get. I don't give a gently caress who you criticize, my whole point is that it's worthless. Your condemnation is expedient and self-promotional, and your fantasy is that it matters. That's what I dispute, the delusion that shame can be leveraged for social good in lieu of politics. Your critique of "greedy lawyers" convinces everyone else that they are a necessity. How could they be anything but in a world populated by you and your strawmen? I don't give a poo poo says man who clearly gives a big poo poo, going by his righteous fury over people doing something he definitely isn't mad about but thinks is a waste of time and also they're all lying
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
"did you know this guy did his what he was supposed to do a lot of times?????? check and mate, system fine  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'll go one further: we should celebrate any attorney who works to prevent the government from incarcerating anyone! blarzgh posted:Did you know Sullivan represented Michal Brown's family in their wrongful death case? https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2018/03/06/prosecutor-adds-attorney-for-michael-brown-family.html Your own loving article posted:Judge Rex Burlison approved a motion from Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner to add Harvard Law School Professor Ronald Sullivan to her team, KMOX reports. blarzgh posted:The only consistent thing in this thread has been the whiplash speed at which the posters in it can jump from position to moderately modified position.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 18:28
|
|
|
lmao I just assumed he was telling the truth workout checking, welp
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:lmao I just assumed he was telling the truth workout checking, welp
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Oh snap I'm destroyed. Blarzgh will be back after the weekend probably to defend his honor. Meanwhile, prisons are bad, but so is Weinstein. Solution is he has to eat filet o fish 3x day and never take immodium.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 02:38
|
|
|
so bottom line do we Judge lawyers or not?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
This isn't even an argument about whether all people deserve legal representation (they do) - this is an argument about how capitalism perverts the functioning of the justice system. Obviously rich people getting better outcomes on average than the norm isn't a desired outcome but that's not really the fault of the lawyers. Yeah there are individual scummy lawyers who love to defend rich scumbags for $$$ (and sure they should get some disdain probably) but the bigger issue is the system that allows this to happen. Are we also going to blame doctors for doing medical procedures on rich people? After all I'm sure Bezos can afford better surgeons and oncologists than I can. The problem there isn't the doctors, the problem is a lovely market healthcare system in which rich people are catered to at everyone else's expense. BTW a lot of lawyers do pro bono work, just to throw that into the conversation. wateroverfire posted:He's an exemplary defense attorney who has worked for rich and poor clients alike. And in fact a lot of the time lawyers charge rich people exorbitantly so they can afford to take on more of the latter type of client. *shrug* Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 19:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think that everyone who participates in and profits from this system is bad Posted from a device made with literal child slave labor.  quote:I think that everyone who participates in and profits from this system is bad (with allowances for special circumstances, etc, under which I might not judge every single individual as bad). but more seriously; your position is that all lawyers are bad, minus mitigating circumstances for various individuals?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 19:22
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Posted from a device made with literal child slave labor. Yes I think that is bad even if the slaveowners are just "responding to incentives"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
But you use the device so either you are a hypocrite who continues to do bad things knowing they are bad while telling others to not do those things or you recognize that the overarching system doesn't really give you much choice in the matter and degrees of culpability exist. Like are lawyers the coltan mine operators in this comparison? Doesn't really seem that way but that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
"Ah but is that a cotton shirt you are wearing, Mr Lincoln ?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
You're the one saying all actors in the justice system are necessarily bad. So it'd be you telling Lincoln he talks a good game but nonetheless participates in a lovely system, no? Am I misreading something? That's why I asked: is it your position that all lawyers are fundamentally bad, minus mitigating circumstances for some individuals? If so what criteria do you have for those mitigating circumstances? Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:You're the one saying all actors in the justice system are necessarily bad. No that is not what I said. That is something that you made up and attributed to me because it's easy to argue with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
K well despite the snarkiness lol it seems yeah I misread a bit. Coulda just said "no that's not what I meant" in the first place when I asked 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:This isn't even an argument about whether all people deserve legal representation (they do) - this is an argument about how capitalism perverts the functioning of the justice system. Well, some are disputing whether this happens in the first place. The question is: "Should lawyers get a special exemption from social opprobrium due to their profession?" To which I say: "Only public defenders." (and some other stuff related to that) edits- human communication is hard! Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jun 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2019 23:49
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:K well despite the snarkiness lol it seems yeah I misread a bit. Coulda just said "no that's not what I meant" in the first place when I asked Well "in the first place" you could have asked me what I meant instead of opening with a sarcastic quip about sweatshop-built electronics and how owning one makes me a hypocrite or whatever. I couldn't say "no that's no what I meant" because I had no way to work backwards from there and infer from your snarky comment exactly what illogical thing you thought I meant. But that said sure you're right, I had a busy day so the terseness of my replies made them come off insulting when that wasn't how I intended them, sorry about that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Well, some are disputing whether this happens in the first place. What about people doing pro bono work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2019 02:49
|
|