TLC,
As promised, here is the reply. (Please don't write lengthy posts in future, if they are addressed to me. My attention span is same as that of dubya's)
Let's assume that OJ and Tyson were both guilty. Neither of us were there, so we can't really be sure, but let's assume they were.
Your argument [it appears] is that an attorney who defended them both did a good job in the first case because he won freedom for his client, and in the second case justice was served because the prosecutor did a better job than that same attorney...therefore implying that the attorney failed to do a good job.
Assuming that they were both guilty, attorney did a very good job in OJ case to get him off the hook. The evidence seemed overwhelmingly against him.
In case of Tyson, I don't know specifics and I have always assumed his guilt (blame the darn media - I always believe them) because of his proclivities to get into such trouble. Since, I do not know the specifics and since I have assumed that he was guilty, I mentioned that justice was served. Prosecutor did a neat job of presenting his case that an attorney fighting a near impossible case, could not save his client going behind bars. Now if that is lousy, I change my opinion and agree with you.
My point is this: if you look at the definition of justice, you'll see that if OJ was really guilty then he did not receive fair treatment and his due reward.
I agree with you. But his attorney's job is to get the best possible for his client.
If the attorney knew that OJ was guilty and got him off in spite of that fact, then by two definitions of the word "justice", the attorney is immoral and corrupt. Morally and ethically, an argument can be made that the attorney is scum, even though he is "doing his job."
Attorney is not responsible for "justice". Attorney is responsible to play his designated part of "defense". It is the dynamics of prosecutor action and attorney action that brings out the truth of the matter, thereby making it easier for jury to deliver a verdict that is closer to being "just". Attorney did a good job within the legal framework. Morality and ethics dictate that attorney defends his client within the legal framework. Attorney however, should not break the law himself and that is not something Alan Dersowitch did in OJ case.
You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that the law takes precedence over moral rightness in the one case, and that moral rightness takes precedence over the law in the other case. You can't do that and win an argument, because is not logical.
I have had it both ways. Personally, assuming OJ was guilty, I am distressed that he is off the hook and I can't stand to see him on TV. But why blame attorneys for that? Blame prosecutors. I still stand by the fact that attorneys got the best for their client and assuming that they did it within the legal framework, I would assume it was moral as well as ethical. That is the oath they have taken.
You are a liberal, and I am a conservative. The interesting thing about it is that we agree on many, many things. If a person, or a group of persons, is oppressed for some reason, and for such a time, as it becomes unbearable to them, then they will revolt. This is a stone-cold fact of life. At some point, they have a moral and ethical right to do so. If an oppressor takes the law into his own hands, or abuses the rights of the person or people he wants to oppress, then he is wrong, and he is not honorable, and he should fall.
I think we can easily agree that anyone that does not agree with the above facts is morally and ethically wrong.
The question is, IMHO, at what point does the moral and ethcial obligation take precedent over the law? At what point does a person say, "The law is wrong, and I am going to break the law because I am morally and ethically right"?
It is upto the individual or group of individuals to make up their own mind that it is ok to break the law and should also be ready for the ramifications. We are in a gray area now. Sometimes it is justified, for example Gandhi broke the british law during Dandi march where he led a huge group of people to manufacture their own salt (per British law, Indians could not manufacture their own salt and were levied outrageous taxes). Keep in mind Gandhi and his followers did break the law, but peacefully. They took the physical punishment from British police/troops for their peaceful protest.
Once that question is answered, the next question is, "In what way am I going to ensure that the law is corrected so this does not happen again"?
In my example above, the law was corrected to the extent that Indians got to make their own laws after getting freedom. They started to manufacture their own salt, clothes etc. Almost the entire country thought that it was right to break the law in that case.
It is my humble personal opinion that the Democrats in this election have made it their policy to appeal to what is bad in people. I think it is a gross tactical, moral, political, and ethical mistake. I think they are doing it because they are being guided by criminals. That's just my personal opinion, and I could be wrong, and I certainly hope that I am.
I really have no idea what you are talking about. I have noticed, for whatever reason, Republicans have crowned themeselves with the mantle of Holier than thou and have relentlessly conducted a smear campaign against Democrats in general and Al Gore in particular as a party that is immoral and Al Gore as a liar who is out there to lie the country to death. I also get the impression that many in GOP believe that common folks supporting democratic party are also of loose morals and want to live in welfare (as evidenced by so many slurs directed against me by some on this board itself). While so many democrats are genuinely uncomfortable with abortion they are also compassionate enough to consider a woman's plight under such distressful situation. But GOPsters think that they are immoral/criminal.
There are many latent problems in the current system of laws where so many people get discriminated against and if democrats fight in favour of an underprivileged individuals they are branded as criminals. Example, about 1/3 of black males have been subject to law enforcement officials at some point of their life. Now if anyone were to fight against this, many on this board will say that the person is supporting criminals.
Supporting gay rights is considered immoral and criminal by holier than thou group
Supporting Darwins theory is considered blasphemous by holier than thou group.
Could add a zillion things here on perceived morality and criminality by GOPsters that are baseless but this post is getting too lengthy for me to handle it. I will revisit this point later, time permitting.
I hope and wish that you and I can simply address what is good and right already, and work together to change the things that are not right. And I hope that we can agree that the underlying concept of justice can guide us, and not the underlying concept that we are either criminals or morons.
I believe that looking at what we agree upon, and using that as a basis for making things better for us, is a better way to attack the problems that surround us than to look at what we do not agree upon
Well I will be brief as I gotta go. I agree with you on this. |
