Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: The Philosopher who wrote (73633)	8/29/2003 12:30:43 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 82486

"...-- if you are pulled over by the police on suspicion of something, say you only wnt a lawyer to defend you if the lawyer is absoltely, completely, totally confident that you are completely innocent. I guarantee you I woudln't do that. And I frankly doubt you would." I absolutely WOULD want to have a lawyer who believes me. I have friends who are attorneys and who know the veracity of my character. I don't think it would be a problem. "At least in the eyes of the law -- there is no third option here. " Actually there is. There is the "reasonable man" law. A reasonable man understands the justice system and doesn't blindly accept its verdicts as absolute. If some shady character gets off on charges of drunken raping and maiming, I would hesitate to encourage one of my daughters to accept a date with him. I think that is quite reasonable. If it were clear that he were completely innocent, that wouldn't be a problem. "What you are doing is saying that the lawyers should replacle the judge and jury." I've said no such thing. I am suggesting that we work harder to find justice in the court system by having law-yers do more than "practice" law. It would be nice if some of them boldly took a "stand" for justice, by refusing to handle cases they didn't believe in, and built a reputation around fighting for justice. There would still be the marauding hordes of you all that will defend anyone for a buck. "You don't want anybody who MIGHT be guilty to have a lawyer to defend them." I have not said that at all or anything close to it. However, I would like to see some changes. When lawyers know their client is guilty, I think it is wrong for them to try to subvert the just outcome with shiester tricks. If they "might" be guilty then we should all be trying to find the best path of proving that they "are" or they "are not." If they "are" guilty the only appropriate plea to the court is called "guilty as charged your honor." The role of the defense is to seek as much mercy under the circumstances as possible...not to do everything possible deceive and obfuscate issues for the judge and jury. Unfortunately too many lawyers who know their client is guilty are not trying to prove that their client is "not guilty" they are only trying to keep the prosecution from having any success...big fat arena game for the lawyers...tsk...Representatives of justice would be a nice change from the current status quo. It might have a good effect on society too...ya think?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next