Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lawyers

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:00:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

No one has thought of a better way so far so I doubt it.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:05:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

No, it is not the best way. This is because a lawyer's goal is not for justice, but for their client. Any lawyer that gets a murderer off the hook should not be viewed as a "skillful" lawyer, but as a detriment to society.

A good way is to have an educated jury, not random everyday people. Only allow people studying in law (or having a degree or career in law) be on the jury. Since they are not representing a client, they will not have the conflict of interest that both the procecutor and defense lawyer have, and they will have at least a better than average understanding of law and how to apply it to cases. This makes it more difficult for a bias lawyer to trick the jury.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 4:09:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Honestly--people forget the purpose of defense attorneys. They're job isn't to prove innocence. Literally speaking, a defense attorney's job is to make sure that the prosecution is prosecuting fairly; that's it. Unfortunately, cases like the Casey Anthony rubbish show how warped the job of defense attorney has actually become.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:22:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:05:55 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

No, it is not the best way. This is because a lawyer's goal is not for justice, but for their client. Any lawyer that gets a murderer off the hook should not be viewed as a "skillful" lawyer, but as a detriment to society.

A good way is to have an educated jury, not random everyday people. Only allow people studying in law (or having a degree or career in law) be on the jury. Since they are not representing a client, they will not have the conflict of interest that both the procecutor and defense lawyer have, and they will have at least a better than average understanding of law and how to apply it to cases. This makes it more difficult for a bias lawyer to trick the jury.

Why have a jury at all?

Why not have the case judged by a judge by themselves? If one judge is not enough, you can have a panel of judges.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:23:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:00:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

No one has thought of a better way so far so I doubt it.

Well, no one's stopping you! Out with your idea :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:40:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:22:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:05:55 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

No, it is not the best way. This is because a lawyer's goal is not for justice, but for their client. Any lawyer that gets a murderer off the hook should not be viewed as a "skillful" lawyer, but as a detriment to society.

A good way is to have an educated jury, not random everyday people. Only allow people studying in law (or having a degree or career in law) be on the jury. Since they are not representing a client, they will not have the conflict of interest that both the procecutor and defense lawyer have, and they will have at least a better than average understanding of law and how to apply it to cases. This makes it more difficult for a bias lawyer to trick the jury.

Why have a jury at all?

Why not have the case judged by a judge by themselves? If one judge is not enough, you can have a panel of judges.

A single judge risks not being fair, so a panel would be better. But there are not enough judges to have a panel on every single case. A panel of law professionals (from lawyers, to judges, to law professors, to law enforcement, to etc) would be the next best option. That makes a good middle ground of the intellectual capabilities of judges, with the "jury of peers."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:40:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:09:06 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Honestly--people forget the purpose of defense attorneys. They're job isn't to prove innocence. Literally speaking, a defense attorney's job is to make sure that the prosecution is prosecuting fairly; that's it. Unfortunately, cases like the Casey Anthony rubbish show how warped the job of defense attorney has actually become.

That is what their point SHOULD be, but that is not what it ends up being.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

Have you seen this video?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:50:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

Have you seen this video?



I guess I asked the wrong people. Thats not at all how I came to that conclusion. I want to be a lawyer and use that as a stepping stone to becoming an elected official. I don't like when people generalize entire professions, like is often done with teaching. Any how, I'll go look it up.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:53:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:50:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

Have you seen this video?



I guess I asked the wrong people. Thats not at all how I came to that conclusion. I want to be a lawyer and use that as a stepping stone to becoming an elected official. I don't like when people generalize entire professions, like is often done with teaching. Any how, I'll go look it up.

Eh--I'd cut out the stepping stone completely and just do a major in Politics and Government. You could become a lawyer after that as well, but I think the whole "stepping stone" idea is bizarre when applied to a field that requires long term dedication.

I still haven't a fecking clue as to what I'm going to do with my life.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:58:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:50:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

I guess I asked the wrong people. Thats not at all how I came to that conclusion. I want to be a lawyer and use that as a stepping stone to becoming an elected official. I don't like when people generalize entire professions, like is often done with teaching. Any how, I'll go look it up.

Do you need to study to be an official? Yes, maybe.
But do you need to study to be elected? I don't think so.

You can study whatever you want, just make sure that you can network like crazy, be popular or better, become famous for any random thing. People love it when famous people talk sense. Just don't marginalize anybody with extreme viewpoints, and always say less.

Bang! You have recognition and your "knowledge" will come in handy.

There's no point getting all the degrees in the world, if you cannot make people like you.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 5:59:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How can one make or brake laws if he hath no in depth knowledge of the subject? Being a lawyer is also a lucrative meanwhile career that would help raise money for a campaign.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
seraine
Posts: 734
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2011 7:48:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:53:54 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:50:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

Have you seen this video?



I guess I asked the wrong people. Thats not at all how I came to that conclusion. I want to be a lawyer and use that as a stepping stone to becoming an elected official. I don't like when people generalize entire professions, like is often done with teaching. Any how, I'll go look it up.

Eh--I'd cut out the stepping stone completely and just do a major in Politics and Government. You could become a lawyer after that as well, but I think the whole "stepping stone" idea is bizarre when applied to a field that requires long term dedication.

I still haven't a fecking clue as to what I'm going to do with my life.

It's me!
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 11:07:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:40:08 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:22:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/14/2011 4:05:55 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

No, it is not the best way. This is because a lawyer's goal is not for justice, but for their client. Any lawyer that gets a murderer off the hook should not be viewed as a "skillful" lawyer, but as a detriment to society.

A good way is to have an educated jury, not random everyday people. Only allow people studying in law (or having a degree or career in law) be on the jury. Since they are not representing a client, they will not have the conflict of interest that both the procecutor and defense lawyer have, and they will have at least a better than average understanding of law and how to apply it to cases. This makes it more difficult for a bias lawyer to trick the jury.

Why have a jury at all?

Why not have the case judged by a judge by themselves? If one judge is not enough, you can have a panel of judges.

A single judge risks not being fair, so a panel would be better. But there are not enough judges to have a panel on every single case. A panel of law professionals (from lawyers, to judges, to law professors, to law enforcement, to etc) would be the next best option. That makes a good middle ground of the intellectual capabilities of judges, with the "jury of peers."

As I see it, the client has to tell the truth to their lawyer if the lawyer has to make a good fist of making a good case for them.

The reason we needed lawyers in the first place is because clients cannot be trusted to tell the truth. In a dispute, both sides can't be right at the same time unless there's a misunderstanding. So we had lawyers who tried to argue technical stuff.

Now, once the client tells the lawyer that they are basically guilty, a lawyer has no "rights" to take their case. If they still do so, now you have a lawyer "lying" technically to obfuscate the case even more.

Your saying one judge cannot be trusted to be fair just adds another level for this "lying". Where will you stop?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 12:48:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

Alright, I'm replying to my own post.

What's wrong with the state providing lawyers for both parties?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 12:53:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

I actually do not believe that lawyers should exist, if a legal matter can not be understood by the general public after a brief study on the matter then that law or clause or principle should not exist.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2011 12:54:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 4:05:55 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

No, it is not the best way. This is because a lawyer's goal is not for justice, but for their client. Any lawyer that gets a murderer off the hook should not be viewed as a "skillful" lawyer, but as a detriment to society.

He is also not doing his job.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 2:00:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/15/2011 12:53:20 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 9/14/2011 3:36:18 PM, Indophile wrote:
More often than not, a skillful lawyer can twist the case around to favor their clients. An individual who does not have enough money cannot get the best lawyers, whereas a rich person can hire the best and "get away" with stuff.

To me, this does not sound like a good way to ensure that justice is served.

Is this the best way possible, or can a better way be found?

I actually do not believe that lawyers should exist, if a legal matter can not be understood by the general public after a brief study on the matter then that law or clause or principle should not exist.

But if lawyers don't exist, both the parties will have to spend all their time building their own cases, which might not be possible as they have to make a living.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 2:35:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:58:30 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:50:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

I guess I asked the wrong people. Thats not at all how I came to that conclusion. I want to be a lawyer and use that as a stepping stone to becoming an elected official. I don't like when people generalize entire professions, like is often done with teaching. Any how, I'll go look it up.

Do you need to study to be an official? Yes, maybe.
But do you need to study to be elected? I don't think so.

You can study whatever you want, just make sure that you can network like crazy, be popular or better, become famous for any random thing. People love it when famous people talk sense. Just don't marginalize anybody with extreme viewpoints, and always say less.

That's his specialty though.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:38:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
How is a single judge any less likely to be fair than groupthink?

Certainly far fairer than untrained slaves
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:41:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

If you only accept cases and money from people who are innocent you'll be out on the streets. This may sound crazy but cops are pretty good at arresting the right people who should be facing trial.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 7:45:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not all lawyers are trial lawyers you know.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
quarterexchange
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 8:20:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:45:04 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Not all lawyers are trial lawyers you know.

He was asking if he could pick his cases, so that's what I was assuming he wanted to be. He could be a prosecuter I suppose.
I don't discriminate....I hate everybody.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 8:21:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

Have you seen this video?



Inspiring!
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 8:24:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 8:21:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

Have you seen this video?



Inspiring!

Yeah, i looked and that Youtube channel has similar videos for doctors, teachers, business school, medical school, PhD in Mathmatics, PhD in Physics...etc. Its just a bunch of cynical bull crap and glorified generalizations of the populace.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 8:35:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 8:24:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 9/16/2011 8:21:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:45:51 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

Have you seen this video?



Inspiring!

Yeah, i looked and that Youtube channel has similar videos for doctors, teachers, business school, medical school, PhD in Mathmatics, PhD in Physics...etc. Its just a bunch of cynical bull crap and glorified generalizations of the populace.

Ahem. It's not all the same channel, sir. There were only three of those--write a novel, go to law school series, and be a teacher. All three of which he has done--he's speaking from personal experience.

The videos to which you refer are other people making their own spinoffs.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 8:40:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/14/2011 5:43:30 PM, 000ike wrote:
I want to be a lawyer. Can they choose their cases?

That mainly depends on what aspect of the law you are in and what position you hold.

If it's your first day on the job with Goldberg, Goldstein, and Goldman, then you're going to get a case handed to you. If you a private practice, you can "choose" a case to the extent that cases are available to you. If you are a contract attorney, you have to get someone to hire you, you can't just walk up and demand jobs.

If you work for the DA then you don't control your case and if you become the DA you get to choose which of a list of cases you'll do.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/16/2011 8:44:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/16/2011 7:38:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
How is a single judge any less likely to be fair than groupthink?

Certainly far fairer than untrained slaves

The judge understands legal precedent and has had to work on legal matters for years. If the law is unfair, you're screwed with a judge or groupthink. If the law is in question, then I'd prefer someone who has gone to law school.

The average person thinks the Bill of Rights was originally made to apply to states and that senators were always elected by popular vote.