A joke that got out of hand.

Those who commit crimes and are caught get a public trial.

At that trial, they get the chance to lie in their defense. Any child knows its wrong to lie; it's also wrong to commit crimes. Having already established their character by arson, rape, murder or theft, lying is a lesser crime; may as well add it to the list.

When the criminal- sorry, "suspect"- can't think of a lie, the government-appointed legal counsel will think of a plausable lie for him to tell. That's their job. Though no one might believe the lie, they have to try. Wriggle on the hook. After all, juries don't convict obviously guilty people all the time.

" A joke that got out of hand." Lie. Wonder if he thought of it, or the lawyer? That's so weak it's gotta be the guy.

One in my morning paper: Huge "suspect" stabbed a woman 6 times. Said he went to her house to "scare" her. When he went to leave (goes his story), she "grabbed him by the back of the shirt collar, pulling him backwards" whereby he fell on her and stabbed her accidently. He doesn't remember or have an explanation how the other 5 stab wounds happened. I dunno. If somebody just stuck a weapon in my face I'd just let him leave. But I'm not a 110 lb woman.

We just had a cop-killer trial. According to (creative) testimony, cocaine, not the killer, is to blame. The guy who stuck the gun under the cop's vest and fired is a victim of cocaine addiction- it's not his fault at all. The system is at fault- the government should do a better job keeping coke off the streets.

Remember the Florida teacher that got killed, shot in the face by a student he had just sent home? The kid came back with a stolen pistol, put it in the teachers face and cold-bloodedly pulled the trigger. Showed him, yeah. Send ME home.

Lawyers mull this over. "OK, let's say he meant to scare him, and the gun misfired. Yeah! That's it! Maybe we can even sue the gun manufacturer. Guns are supposed to have safeties. We'll tell the kid to lie."

The gun maker was sued. Somebody has to pay for this!

But I believe the kid pulled the trigger.

The system is the joke, to me. "If you cannot lie for yourself, a liar will be appointed for your defense."

My apologies to lawyers in general. Like fish, there are many kinds. One of my cousins is a lawyer specializing in helping people ripped off by stockbrokers. But to be a criminal defender of the obviously guilty, whereby your job is to create a falsehood to help an evil person escape justice... I couldn't do it. How could anyone of moral conviction?

Hopelessly guilty? Obviously guilty? Caught just dead-to-rights by the law?

Call Johnny Cochran, that miracle worker.


Ad Astra
 
One problem is that we sometimes cannot be sure that someone is guilty. They just let a guy out here in Ohio after years in prison for child rape. Only he didn't do it. Someone else did the deed. (They have him in jail already for other voilent crimes.) DNA. AS badly as the system served the wrongly-convicted (No other crimes on his record, by the way.), would he have been better served by no lawyer on his side? Would "justice" have been better served? Hardly.

Another problem is that the lawyers for the accused in state courts are, generally, more competent than the lawyers for the People. If the accused has access to lots of money, his lawyer will probably be MUCH better than the lawyer for the People.

Yet another problem is that lawyers who defend criminals often violate ethical rules - for example the rule that a lawyer is not to personally vouch for the thruthfulness of his client -- but they do that all the time. They also accuse third parties of being the real crook with no "reasonable basis" in fact for that tactic -- another violation of the ethical rules for lawyers. The odeous TV program about plaintiff's/defense lawyers (which I will not name :barf: ) celebrated this scummy behavior (falsely accusing another for their client's misdeeds) as "Plan B."

Why do they get away with it? The judges do not enforce the rules.

Which brings us to the final, monster problem -- the elected state-court judges. Instead of being our brightest and best, they are too often the medicore scrapings of the bottom of the political barrel. Being a judge is the best job they could have 'cause they could not make a living as a lawyer. (And this is not to mention the lazy and the perpetually petulent, but otherwise competent.) If one-third of the elected trial judges in a big city are competent, hard-working, and honest, you are doing well.

As always, we get the government we collectively deserve, including the judicial branch thereof. If voters are uninformed about the facts that should guide their votes for candidates for legislative and executive office, they are massively uninformed about the facts regarding judicial candidates.

In this last, the "system" connives by barring public discussion of the relative qualifications of the candidates for judge, reducing the information to: "I'm good. I'm tough on crime, Look, I have a wife and kids. I have a nice smile. I'll work hard for YOU." :rolleyes:
 
If we didn't have defense attorneys, we could not justify our laws.

Not all lawyers are scum. Thomas takes a bath frequently, from what I've heard.


munk
 
Darn straight. And in these modern times, the kids don't even have to use the water a second time. What the hell- splurge a little.





munk
 
Eric_425 said:
In my eyes, if it can be proven beyond doubt that a criminal commited a heinious crime like the baby rapist, or torturer/murderers, he is no longer human. Revenge? It is neither correction nor revenge. It is just permanently putting down an individual threat so it can no longer harm others. Just like a rabid animal.
Click to expand...

That sounds like revenge to me. Perhaps deterrance. Certainly not correction -- we're in agreement on that point.

Are you recommending that we dehumanize offenders in order to justify our actions against them? I'm not trying to place words in your mouth, but that's what I'm getting out of this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top