Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (73612)	8/28/2003 6:03:43 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"And getting a guilty person acquitted is good because???" A lawyer has only one job and that is to get his client either off the charges laid or to minimize them via the circumstances the initial charges were laid. Honor, truth and justice are for Hollywood movies...

To: one_less who wrote (73612)	8/28/2003 6:26:58 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"And getting a guilty person acquitted is good because???" Probably because it is precisely that quality of the reliance on the presumption of innocence which sometimes prevents the innocent from being convicted and caused to suffer or die. That would be my guess. The attempt to put every obstacle in the path of conviction would then appear to be good as there is a default presumption of innocense. Individual outcomes which are unfair are thus "good" only in a metaphorical sense of being the result of honouring a principle that it is better for ten guilty to go free than for one innocent man to be dealt injustice. However, I did not claim that the consequence was always good, only that the tricks of lawyers to manipulate outcomes are facts of life, and are generally tolerated by society as acceptable parts of the game. You might want to read a book by F. Lee Bailey called "The Defense Never Rests" if it is still in print. It might also be "good" for the lawyer if it leads to his appointment as a judge--tongue in cheek, ya know.... "It insults the integrity of the court" It may or it may not. Many courts have little integrity to insult. Judges like others can be gamblers; or they can routinely pay for their special kind of sex with the girls who strike their fancy or fantasy. And of course, they are prejudiced for or against all the things which other people are prejudiced for or against. Some are lenient, some are punitive, some are alcoholics. As I have said over and over, a lie may insult or honour just as the truth may. Undercover cops lie all the time and they are damn good at it because they had a lot of practice before qualifying.

To: one_less who wrote (73612)	8/28/2003 8:04:26 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

And getting a guilty person acquitted is good because??? Jewel, you show a common but unfortunate lack of understanding of our justice system. First, you say "getting a guilty person acquitted." This is impossible. Our legal system is based on the principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty by due process of law. Thus, if they have been acquitted, they are by law not guilty, and never have been. So there can be no such thing as a guilty person acquitted. It is a legal impossibility. What you say in most cases actually breaks down to this: the term "guilty person" really means "based on news reports of media which make their money by sensationalizing conflict, and not having sat through all the testimony presented in court, but having only heard only that information which the media thinks their audiences will want to hear and those unsworn statements which the various sides persuade the media to report based on what they want to persuade the public, outside of the process of law, to believe, I have decided that I know more about the case than the judge or the jury who have sworn to listen to all the testimony and the applicable law, and I have decided that the judge or jury didn't make the right decision, but I have, and the person is guilty because I say so even though the process of law says they are completely innocent." While you don't put it in those words, in fact that is what you are saying.