|
...Literally. Earlier this year, Harvard University informed professors Robert Sullivan and Stephanie Robinson (who are married) that their terms as faculty deans of Winthrop House (a Harvard student dorm) would not be renewed. The reason cited by Harvard College Dean Rakesh Khurana was: "Over the last few weeks, students and staff have continued to communicate concerns about the climate in Winthrop House to the college. The concerns expressed have been serious and numerous," according to an article on CNN. Sullivan had joined Harvey Weinstein's defense team in January. That decision sparked outrage, protests, and sit ins by Harvard students because...well...we all understand why, right? Sullivan sent an email to students and tutors shortly after the news broke. While I can't find a copy, this article in the Crimson has several excerpts. quote:“It has come to my attention that a few of you have questions and a few others have concerns in regard to my most recent representation,” Sullivan wrote. “I shall take this opportunity to say a word to our community about the nature of criminal defense in the United States.” Which is, one could argue, the attitude one would hope for and expect from a criminal defense attorney. Freshman Hakeem Angulu had this to say, in the Crimson, about Sullivan's decision. quote:“Let me be clear, the point about Harvey Weinstein deserving due process is a straw man argument and is a point that protesters have never disputed,” Angulu said. “The more specific and relevant point that we're trying to make is that Dean Sullivan does not have to provide the representation, and by providing, he is compromising his ability to serve survivors and his house.” Which frames one argument against Sullivan's self-interested (in this case) viewpoint. Complicating matters - by some accounts Sullivan was kind of an rear end in a top hat and not a great dean. So let's debate - were Harvard students right to protest? Was Harvard right to accede to their demands (if that's what Harvard did)? Does every criminal defendant deserve a defense and does that mean lawyers who defend them should not face consequences for doing so? All these things and more are fair game. What is NOT in any way fair game is debate about Weinstein's guilt or innocence or implication that what he is alleged to have done is ok. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jun 7, 2019 |
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
I like this question because it speaks to so much wrong with our legal system. The rich buy the attorneys who play golf with the judges and everyone comes out ahead except poor people. As long as he could get a public defender I think it's fair to apply these sorts of social pressures against gross rich weirdos and their fancy lawyers. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jun 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2019 18:48
|
|
|
You don't take Harvey Weinstein's case out of high minded civic duty. You take it because he pays by dump truck full of cash and because he can afford the best, it's confirmation that you're the best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 01:25
|
|
|
Don't wanna get poo poo for defending dickheads don't be a lawyer. Seems pretty simple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
Even when you go out of your way to pretend it's all about the Weinstein case, you still couldn't manage to completely hide any mention of the misconduct Sullivan was actually fired for, which should be a clear sign of just how severe his misbehavior was. What misbehavior? Well, another Harvard faculty member is facing sexual harassment allegations, and Sullivan publicly spoke out in support of him - while condemning #MeToo as a movement dedicated to false rape charges, and claiming that the accusers were coached. Given that Harvard has faced a number of sexual harassment scandals in recent years, having a faculty member shooting off his mouth about claiming that victims are actually liars who are framing professors isn't a good look, especially when he's also leaking details from the confidential investigation. Given the above, it should be no surprise that the students were uncomfortable with him being in a position of leadership and oversight. His first response was to appoint a "point person" in his residence hall who would hear sexual harassment allegations in his place, but the fact that he felt it necessary to hand off part of his job duties to someone else was just more evidence that he wasn't suitable for that job. Not to mention, of course, Sullivan's long history of troublemaking as a faculty dean, marked by years of bullying and retaliation against underlings, forcing students into doing personal errands for him, threatening people seen as "disloyal" to him, and once driving his subordinates to the point of engaging in an organized labor action against him. When tutors criticized his stance on sexual harassment, he threatened to give them negative performance reviews and made numerous hostile comments. The OP of the thread is unfortunately impossible to discuss as anything more than a hypothetical strawman, because it's simply not true. It's plain to see that Sullivan's long history of inadequacy and misconduct as a faculty dean have far more to do with him losing the dean role than anything he's done as an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
Also Sullivan was "fired" from having a free apartment and hosting a fancy party once a year. He's still a professor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Don't wanna get poo poo for defending dickheads don't be a lawyer. Seems pretty simple. You don't make exceptions for due process and part of due process is getting to have a lawyer present. Defense lawyers also aren't 100% about trying to get the person cleared of charges; part of it is ensuring that the prosecution does their job properly and that the sentencing is actually fair if there's a guilty charge. Even in cases where the person is blatantly guilty as hell there should still be a defense lawyer present as prosecutors are still human. Bad poo poo is pretty much guaranteed to start happening when you start making exceptions on due process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:You don't make exceptions for due process and part of due process is getting to have a lawyer present. Defense lawyers also aren't 100% about trying to get the person cleared of charges; part of it is ensuring that the prosecution does their job properly and that the sentencing is actually fair if there's a guilty charge. Even in cases where the person is blatantly guilty as hell there should still be a defense lawyer present as prosecutors are still human. Bad poo poo is pretty much guaranteed to start happening when you start making exceptions on due process. Mild social disapproval is not creating an exception to due process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Oh wow. So gently caress this conversation then because the whole point is to get us talking about whether or not it's okay for someone who merely did his job to get retribution, and thus bury the actual scummy poo poo he did. Like, I think the conversation of ethics in a combative legal system is interesting and worth having, but as long as the OP is focused on the Harvard example that side is inherently bad faith.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 07:19
|
|
|
He resigned from representing Weinstein a month ago. Which was curiously left out. Also, it is deeply amusing that in a thread about how everyone should get a defense, the final line of the OP is about how no one should actually, like, do that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 07:32
|
|
|
A quick review of the OP's rap sheet reveals that he was unapologetically run out of TGRS by koalas march.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
We had this debate in USPOL awhile back and I stand by my position that it's one thing when a lawyer is assigned to a shitbag, it's another thing entirely if they seek out the shitbag. If you voluntarily seek out to be Harvey Weinstein's defense attorney and are also publicly pro-sexual harassment (lol), then yeah people should judge the gently caress out of you and not respect you at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 08:15
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Mild social disapproval is not creating an exception to due process. 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. For due process to function properly there needs to be a no exceptions, ever clause in it. That means even the worst people get to have lawyers, end of story, and we shouldn't judge somebody for defending a bad person. The reason for this is not to defend bad people but rather to defend not bad people. As soon as you make an exception you're pretty much guaranteed to have some poo poo nugget somewhere stuffing a crowbar in the exception and prying it open as far as they possibly can. Which is, incidentally, part of why lawyers have such a lovely reputation. The less scrupulous ones keep looking for those exceptions while holding a crowbar. Of course if the lawyer in question is a lovely person outside of their lawyering then fine, go ahead and judge them to hell and back for that. No problem there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:If you voluntarily seek out to be Harvey Weinstein's defense attorney and are also publicly pro-sexual harassment (lol), then yeah people should judge the gently caress out of you and not respect you at all. For once the system worked 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 08:17
|
|
|
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. For due process to function properly there needs to be a no exceptions, ever clause in it. That means even the worst people get to have lawyers, end of story, and we shouldn't judge somebody for defending a bad person. The reason for this is not to defend bad people but rather to defend not bad people. As soon as you make an exception you're pretty much guaranteed to have some poo poo nugget somewhere stuffing a crowbar in the exception and prying it open as far as they possibly can. nobody here is booing due process the math is simple - did this guy have a legal obligation to take the case? no? that's it, we can judge them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 12:34
|
|
|
Only innocent people should get trials
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
Maybe lawyers have a lovely reputation because they're a major part of the vehicle whereby money gets you freedom. If the justice system were something worth defending you might have a point but I see no reason to boo hoo over rich shithead lawyers suffering mild criticism while remaining filthy rich from enforcing plutocracy. gently caress them and gently caress their lovely rich clients.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
Yea, private practice of law creates some perverse incentives that ripple throughout a society and that combined with the very existence of a professional legal class erodes equality. Lawyers should be civil servants. But that's an old rant. A more interesting question I think is if the university has an obligation to the public in regards to who it gives a platform to by way of its law school and faculty. These positions, particularly ones at Ivies like Harvard, wield enormous influence on American society. To the point that influence is bought. For whatever small amount it is worth - I think they do, and it's a unique one relative to other parts of a university. Academic freedom doesn't really make sense in law - there's no inquiry, it's inherently political, and I don't know of a nest of radical law professors at ivies being protected by it. It mostly seems like an excuse to hire conservatives and let shitbags like this be important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
As long as the lawyer had a choice in whether to represent the client, they should have to face whatever consequences or criticism that comes their way. If no one WANTS to represent someone, then that person is still entitled to representation and can have a public defender assigned to them (who should NOT be subject to those same criticisms). Everyone has a right to representation, but being rich does not give you a right to expensive representation. It can be a calculated risk, though, because if you're the lawyer that manages to get Weinstein off (pun intended), you'll probably secure enough future success that you won't care who fired you. Just look at the OJ team.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
The entire US justice system is irrevocably broken and no honest person denies that the ultra-wealthy might as well live in a different universe from everyone else when it comes to the justice system so it's really hard to care that much about these minor details. Of all the contemporary problems with the system this seems like a very weird one to focus on right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 18:13
|
|
|
Even the merely well off live in a different world, albeit not the same different world as the ultra rich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
It is the nature of the lamprey to bite the first fish it smells. Who am I to fault the lamprey
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 18:40
|
|
|
The us system being bad doesn't mean you should replace it with something absurdly worse. If no one respectable can ever defend any client accused of a serious crime then you just have a kangaroo court. Harvey Weinstein is pretty drat clearly guilty, he should go to jail after a totally real trial that finds that, you shouldn't need a kangaroo joke trial for people that are actually clearly guilty. Not defending people accused of serious crimes is going to hurt poorer people way more than it'll hurt rich people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Poorer people have to use the public defender system, which is then ludicrously underfunded, because it's only used by poorer people. I don't know if I'd call it a kangaroo court, but I'd be amenable to the argument. Lawyers in private practice don't really factor in here duder. Like you're concerned about the chilling impact on a handful of pro-bono cases a year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
twodot posted: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? People not having access to private lawyers is not an argument against a system being not a kangaroo court! Also is the concept is that someone who defends pedophiles and rapists in court is as bad as a pedophile or rapist then why are public defenders immune? They took the job knowing they'd be defending pedophiles too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:23
|
|
|
This is the same guy who basically tried to get dnd to say it was okay to not pay people fairly so I feel like he's just an rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:The us system being bad doesn't mean you should replace it with something absurdly worse. That's why everyone would get the exact same service and level of representation oocc you dweeb Owlofcreamcheese posted:People not having access to private lawyers is not an argument against a system being not a kangaroo court! They don't choose to defend awful people for a huge paycheck, they choose to help the poorest people because everyone deserves representation, shut the gently caress up with this "well you live in society" poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Dubar posted:As long as the lawyer had a choice in whether to represent the client, they should have to face whatever consequences or criticism that comes their way. If no one WANTS to represent someone, then that person is still entitled to representation and can have a public defender assigned to them (who should NOT be subject to those same criticisms). 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. * The fact that role also includes the defense of those who are too poor for other defense and thus get hosed the hardest doesn't change that. For me those two facets should be considered separately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
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. Because the Constitution. The right to criminal representation is one of the few good things about our legal system.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:53
|
|
|
The pretense that everyone gets equal representation however is not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:This is the same guy who basically tried to get dnd to say it was okay to not pay people fairly so I feel like he's just an rear end in a top hat This was my assumption even before, shockingly, we found out the guy he's so worried is being unfairly ostracized was a massive prick with a long history of serial harassment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
twodot posted:The distinction between a person working in a publicly provided service that society has decided everyone needs and a freelance person picking and choosing clients to maximize their wealth should be incredibly obvious. Criminal defense lawyers provide the same service regardless of whether they are public defenders, employees or freelancers. The distinction the lawyers' motivation to perform that service do not alter my opinion of the service itself. So I don't think either public defenders or criminal defense attorneys should be judged for defending a bad person. And correspondingly, a freelance lawyer who chooses clients only to maximize his wealth should be judged even if that somehow resulted in him only working for good people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
No who they choose to defend is important too, when the law functions to entrench inequality and injustice then choosing to defend the rich and powerful absolutely reflects on the individual and cannot be excused by some "oh everyone's entitled to a defence" schtick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Also is the concept is that someone who defends pedophiles and rapists in court is as bad as a pedophile or rapist then why are public defenders immune? except people have taken pains to explicitly not make that concept, dumbass
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
The best defense for Weinstien right now is that he can't get a fair trial because even a law school is retailiating against his defense attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 01:25 |
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:The best defense for Weinstien right now is that he can't get a fair trial because even a law school is retailiating against his defense attorney. Not being able to get a fancy high powered attorney is not and cannot be the bar that decides what a fair trial is. Of course our judges picked from the Heritage Foundation factory don’t give two shits about the law or precedent, so who the hell knows in our courts these days.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2019 00:10
|
|
