|
Schubalts posted:Public defenders aren't the only lawyers who will represent poor people and minorities (ethnic, sexual, etc).
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Schubalts posted:Public defenders aren't the only lawyers who will represent poor people and minorities (ethnic, sexual, etc). You said that if I hate Harvey Weinstein's lawyer it won't stop with rich people's lawyers. You're either arguing (1) if I hate bad people for being bad people I will inevitably start hating people for being black or queer, which is a dumb argument; or (2) that somehow my hating bad people for being bad causes other people to hate black people or queer people, which is not any less dumb
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
Let’s say that ten minutes after the end of Philadelphia Denzel goes to his church. At the risk of buying into a dangerous stereotype, let’s say this church’s congregation doesn’t like gay people very much and isn’t very concerned about protecting the rights of people with AIDS (it is the ‘80s after all). So now Denzel’s pastor confronts him for representing that gay AIDS patient (Hanks) in his employment discrimination suit against his old law firm alleging that they fired him because he had AIDS. This thread wants a lawyer to have a moral obligation to be answerable for his client’s deeds and legal positions. Under this framework, Denzel has no good defense. If he can’t convince his pastor overnight that it’s okay to be gay and AIDS patients deserve legal protection (something that probably will take he community about three more decades to accept and WHICH HE HIMSELF IS NOT ENTIRELY CONVINCED OF AT THE END OF THE MOVIE) he will have to accept that, in the eyes of the congregation, he did a moral wrong and made the world worse with his legal advocacy by making it harder to discriminate against gay people with AIDS. Moreover, Denzel knows that and will be less likely to take the case. If there were a strong presumption that a lawyer need not answer for his client’s inckiness to the community, this isn’t a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Let’s say that ten minutes after the end of Philadelphia Denzel goes to his church. At the risk of buying into a dangerous stereotype, let’s say this church’s congregation doesn’t like gay people very much and isn’t very concerned about protecting the rights of people with AIDS (it is the ‘80s after all). So now Denzel’s pastor confronts him for representing that gay AIDS patient (Hanks) in his employment discrimination suit against his old law firm alleging that they fired him because he had AIDS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
If the pastor doesn't think gay people with AIDS have human rights, how is an argument that legal representation is a human right supposed to convince him that gay people with AIDS should have legal representation. Also in this scenario is Denzel saying "btdubs if Hanks were poor you bet your rear end I wouldn't help his broke rear end get his job back"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
I mean if the masterstroke argument here is going to be “it doesn’t really matter what moral precepts we adopt” this entire discussion is pointless and no one making that argument should ever be allowed to make a moral argument in D&D ever again.
Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I mean, presumably we’re trying to decide which rule is best, the rule that lawyers should be judged for their clients, or the rule that they should not be. Denzel is in a better position under the second rule, so I argue it is better in this case. edit: Like if I say "People should be judged by their actions" it is not a valid counter argument to say "Under that rule some people will judge gay people as bad". Obviously I'm imagining a specific set of actions that are judgment worthy. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You said that if I hate Harvey Weinstein's lawyer it won't stop with rich people's lawyers. I did not say anything of the sort, what the hell? You do realize that bigotry is still extremely widespread, right? You do realize that people can hate rich white guys, while also being gigantic bigots themselves, right? poo poo, let's just point to the members of racial/ethnic minorities who are still fully able to be bigots against sexual minorities (hello, black and Hispanic supporters of gay marriage bans that used the same arguments as interracial marriage bans) while hating rich white guys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:The point is that "punish a lawyer because ~the community~ doesn't like their clients" doesn't apply only to rich people's lawyers. Maybe it overwhelmingly already applies to poor people and the pearl clutching when the mildest criticism is levelled at a rich prick is loving hilarious and pathetic in equal measure?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:My rule is "lawyers should be judged for the clients they pick and also people shouldn't hate on gay people" which seems to make everyone better off. Okay, but this leaves you with no good response when people start condemning lawyers who defend clients they think are icky but who you want to protect. You might say those people are wrong, but that won’t matter to the lawyers in their community, who have to live and make their reputations by the standards of their community, not twodot’s master moral codex that is always right. If, on the other hand, everyone follows he moral rule I prefer, there will be no problem. Except of course, for the problem that it’ll be harder for Twitter mobs and self righteous teenagers to get people fired. What a shame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay, but this leaves you with no good response when people start condemning lawyers who defend clients they think are icky but who you want to protect. You might say those people are wrong, but that won’t matter to the lawyers in their community, who have to live and make their reputations by the standards of their community, not twodot’s master moral codex that is always right. I've got a great response it's gently caress the rich lol. The problem isn't that some people suffer it's that the wrong people suffer. And again, you're suggesting that the alternative is some magical utopia where everone is nice and everything is fair because we all agree that marginalizing people shouldn't happen because we were nice to rick prick lawyers. Which, loving lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:47
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:I did not say anything of the sort, what the hell? Yes I do which is why I find the argument that rich lawyers suffering social consequences for doing scummy things is a slippery slope to black people being hated for their skin color ridiculous. It's clear that bigotry exists already, has existed long before we were born, and is not a reaction to my opinion of Sullivan. It's obvious that bigots who want lawyers to be hated for representing gay people feel that way because they hate gay people, and aren't interested in a social contact where they stop hating gay people's lawyers in exchange for me being nicer to Harvey. It is obvious that the only consequence to me unilaterally defending rich scumbags is rich scumbags getting defended, it sure isn't going to convince homophobes to be cool to my hypothetical lawyer. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jun 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay, but this leaves you with no good response when people start condemning lawyers who defend clients they think are icky but who you want to protect. You might say those people are wrong, but that won’t matter to the lawyers in their community, who have to live and make their reputations by the standards of their community, not twodot’s master moral codex that is always right. Why would bigots follow this social contact, I don't think they love Harvey Weinstein more than they hate black people. Like their goal is black people suffering, clearly they aren't going to be swayed by the argument that black people will suffer if they break the contract! And I doubt they're so horny for a privileged legal system for the rich that they're willing to be cool to black people so Weinstein can rape with impunity. Even if I waved a magic wand and convinced them that they shouldn't judge lawyers based on the people they represent, if they don't think black people are really people then there's no contradiction in them hating lawyers whose clients aren't people. Like that's how prejudice works, you define some group as not really people so you can believe in human rights for some people and not others. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I've got a great response it's gently caress the rich lol. See the problem with arguing with you is exactly that you don’t have any principles other than that you hate rich people and want to hurt them. You’re a conservative’s parody of a progressive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay, but this leaves you with no good response when people start condemning lawyers who defend clients they think are icky but who you want to protect. You might say those people are wrong, but that won’t matter to the lawyers in their community, who have to live and make their reputations by the standards of their community, not twodot’s master moral codex that is always right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:See the problem with arguing with you is exactly that you don’t have any principles other than that you hate rich people and want to hurt them. You’re a conservative’s parody of a progressive. You're arguing that it's immoral to attack the inequality in the justice system on the basis that it will hurt the people who are already being hurt by said inequality, and therefore we should all be nice and not challenge it, which will help them, in the face of loving reality. Which is that it does absolutely nothing to help people. You're literally arguing that the status quo is good because it helps people when everyone else is pointing out that the only people it helps are rich scumbags who are above the law because of how money controls the justice system. What I hate is that injustice, that outcome, and fixing it involves attacking the people perpetuating it. You can happy clappy kumbaya this fantasy notion of decorum being the solution to systemic wrongdoing but I would suggest that that is a far more laughable idea than mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:If everyone follows my master moral codex then I'm happy and I don't really give a poo poo the bigots got brainwashed. You are correctly pointing out I can't convince everyone to do what I want, but that applies equally to you as to me. Not everyone will follow the rule you prefer. Behold! Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags. Now given we both understand we can't convince everyone to do what we want, explain to me how me saying Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags causes an ounce of harm to any vulnerable or poor person. So trying to make rules for ethics is pointless because not everyone will follow them. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So trying to make rules for ethics is pointless because not everyone will follow them. Hmm. Ethics is not politics, do you understand this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You're arguing that it's immoral to attack the inequality in the justice system on the basis that it will hurt the people who are already being hurt by said inequality, and therefore we should all be nice and not challenge it, which will help them, in the face of loving reality. Which is that it does absolutely nothing to help people. Getting someone fired because you don’t like their client is not “attacking the inequality in the justice system”. As I have explained a thousand times, that kind of thinking actually tends to make the justice system less equal. I know that you are very used to justifying your vindictiveness as a crusade against injustice, but it doesn’t make sense here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Getting someone fired because you don’t like their client is not “attacking the inequality in the justice system”. As I have explained a thousand times, that kind of thinking actually tends to make the justice system less equal. I know that you are very used to justifying your vindictiveness as a crusade against injustice, but it doesn’t make sense here. Getting someone fired because their client is rich and thus embodies the biggest systemic injustice in the world today absolutely does attack the inequality of wealth in the justice system. Boiling poo poo down to blanket statements is a very weak form of argumentation. Like very very simply, if rich people couldn't get fancy lawyers, that would make the justice system more equal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:So trying to make rules for ethics is pointless because not everyone will follow them. Hmm. Ogmius815 posted:If, on the other hand, everyone follows he moral rule I prefer, there will be no problem. Except of course, for the problem that it’ll be harder for Twitter mobs and self righteous teenagers to get people fired. What a shame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not sure why a system of free civil litigators wouldn't be workable either. twodot posted:Uh it is bad that the police behaved so illegally that they managed to let a rapist get the charges dismissed. Like I hope we all agree that is bad that the police perform illegal searches, and they should not do that. If the lawyer decided to defended the rapist because they think rapists are rad, that would be bad, but within your hypothetical we're just speculating as to the lawyer's motivations. twodot posted:Everyone has already agreed that public defenders get an exception.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm still not clear whether you're arguing from an outcomes based ethics, or an intentions based one. quote:Except that exception makes no sense. If you're arguing from an outcomes based perspective, whether the lawyer is pro bono or paid makes no difference as to whether a dirt bag gets off, and if you're arguing from an intent perspective, getting paid for your work doesn't inherently corrupt your good intent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
Like the whole point of weinstein is that his connections and money are what put him in the position to do what he did and get away with it, and now he's hiring fancy lawyers with his money and connections to get away with it even more. And you're coming in saying "hey now you can't say bad things about that cos that's gonna hurt people who can't afford lawyers, really saying that being rich is bad is childish"
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There is a lot of daylight between totally righteous lawsuits, and frivolous lawsuits, which are so ridiculous that even filing them in the first place is actionable. These days, if a lawyer won't take your case, it might be because they think it is unlikely to succeed on the merits for any number of reasons, not just because it was frivolous. If the system we have now to keep lovely-but-not-sanctionworthy cases from clogging up the courts is "every lawyer you ask independently comes to the unanimous conclusion that your case sucks and turns you down even if you have the money" then the hypothetical professional organization assigning free lawyers, presumably itself made up of lawyers, would obviously come to the same unanimous conclusion so I don't see the problem VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
twodot posted:Judge how lawyers choose their clients. Public defenders do not choose their clients and therefore do not have a choice to judge beyond "be a public defender" which is justified by being net-beneficial even if does have bad outcomes sometimes. If the outcome you are trying to avoid by shaming lawyers who defend dirt bags is "dirt bags getting away with crimes", then there is no reason to spare PDs, who chose to become PDs in the full knowledge that they would be called upon from time to time to defend dirt bags. I feel like the argument you're really making is that it is unfair that the poor have to resort to overworked PDs, while the rich can afford to hire fancy criminal lawyers, but you don't want to contend with all the problems that abolishing the private practice of criminal law would cause.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:But surely if a defendant was so repulsive and obviously guilty that anyone assisting in their defense deserves to be a social pariah, any PD assigned to the case ought to refuse to participate as a matter of principle, since the result would be a dirt bag evading justice. quote:I feel like the argument you're really making is that it is unfair that the poor have to resort to overworked PDs, while the rich can afford to hire fancy criminal lawyers, but you don't want to contend with all the problems that abolishing the private practice of criminal law would cause.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
So why is it bad if people get paid to provide that defense? What is the principle at stake here? What bad outcome are you trying to avoid by people choosing to represent Harvey Weinstein instead of being forced to do it or lose their jobs?
Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If the outcome you are trying to avoid by shaming lawyers who defend dirt bags is "dirt bags getting away with crimes", then there is no reason to spare PDs, who chose to become PDs in the full knowledge that they would be called upon from time to time to defend dirt bags. Well the outcome I'm trying to avoid is injustice The PD system doesn't function to let dirtbags get away with crimes, its function is to ensure justice is done by providing the vigorous defense assumed by an adversarial legal system. Sometimes the unintended consequence is dirtbags getting away with crimes. I would argue that our separate special legal system for the rich does not function to ensure justice, its function is to let dirtbags get away with crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:07
|
|
|
OK, but the outcome of "dirt bags getting away with crimes" is the same in both cases, so you're not arguing from an outcomes standpoint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:13
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So why is it bad if people get paid to provide that defense? What is the principle at stake here? What bad outcome are you trying to avoid by people choosing to represent Harvey Weinstein instead of being forced to do it or lose their jobs? I'm open to other ideas. What if you could choose any criminal defense attorney who is willing and they're paid a standard fee by the government. Take away the monetary incentive to create a special system just for the rich. Maybe some other professional regulations to prevent the lawyer from being compensated in other ways (can't go work for that rich client right after or whatever). If no lawyer will agree, one gets assigned, rather than relying on a cadre of overworked PDs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So why is it bad if people get paid to provide that defense? What is the principle at stake here? What bad outcome are you trying to avoid by people choosing to represent Harvey Weinstein instead of being forced to do it or lose their jobs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Arguing specifically against the aspect of the legal system that exists solely to facilitate people getting away with crimes is entirely consistent with wanting to reduce that outcome... The argument is that public defenders sometimes fail to carry out justice whereas expensive lawyers generally exist to produce injustice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:OK, but the outcome of "dirt bags getting away with crimes" is the same in both cases, so you're not arguing from an outcomes standpoint. My argument is that the larger consequences are different. If a rapist gets off because the cops did an illegal search versus a rapist gets off because the judge takes bribes, yes the immediate outcome is the same, a rapist gets off, but the larger consequences are very different! I can still reason based on outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Getting someone fired because their client is rich and thus embodies the biggest systemic injustice in the world today absolutely does attack the inequality of wealth in the justice system. At what level of net worth/income does somebody become indefensible? Top 1%? Upper-middle class? Simply living in the US and therefore being "rich" by global standards? I personally have never used a public defender in the handful of times I've been to court. My only anecdotal contradiction to the "all PDs are saints" idea is a former high school friend. I think he worked for a private practice for a while, then worked for the PD office until he was fired for practicing law without a license (it had lapsed for a few days). Later he was arrested for smuggling drugs to a client he was visiting in jail. I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but this surely means a nonzero number of PDs are poo poo, even if "nonzero" = one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Everyone who compared being rich to being gay is the worst
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:30
|
|
|
congrats on another stellar thread, wateroverfire can't wait for the next installment of this "ethics vs money" series
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:My argument is that the larger consequences are different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
If there weren't an equivalence then people wouldn't pay for lawyers..? You input money and you output a greatly increased probability of either being acquitted or reducing your sentence for your crimes. And the likelihood is proportional to how much money you have to input. You can argue the details sure but the outcome is quite comparable in both cases, wealth = immunity from the law. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:18 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Everyone who compared being rich to being gay is the worst No you see rich people are an oppressed minority much like the gays. they are truly comparable when talking about legal representation. their status is entirely equivalent in this discussion. i am very smart
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 02:30
|
|
