Crap - my daughter nicked by the old bill for passing a school bus

[bing_oh]

So you ask us not to bash your profession, and then you turn around and bash someone else's?

Didn't know you were a lawyer, Tave.

[bing_oh]

That's what people say when judges set precedents that they don't agree with. Its often mis-used.

It really only applies to when a judge disregards the precedent set by a higher court.

Legal interpetation and legislating from the bench are two very different things.

The courts are supposed to interpet the law...that's their place in checks and balances. And, no law is going to be totaly balck and white. There will always be gray area for the courts to interpet. But, judges do blatently disregard the laws as they are written...and do so more than most people realize. Ask any cop and he'll probably be able to tell you at least one law, major or minor, thet his local judge will throw out regardless of the facts of the case (if not, he's lucky to have a good judge). That's not interpetation of the law, that's legislating from the bench.

[sparkplug]

That's why there's a court system. It's checks and balances, where the judicial branch (the court) makes sure that the actions of the executive branch (the police) are within the limits defined in the Constitution. If there's an intentional abuse of power by a LEO, then you file a complaint with his or her supervisor.

As for "gray area" within the law, you'd have to take that up with your elected representitives (the last branch of government, the legistature). They write the laws and they're the only ones who are supposed to be able to actually change it (unless you want to get into judges who legislate from the bench, and that's a whole other can of political worms). Until the legislature eliminates any supposed "gray areas," then it's the job of the courts to interpet the law post-enforcement.

A case in point would be a certain rape case in NC that cost a DA his job. Criminals go free too often and leo's who violate the law get away with it too often. It isn't a perfect system because people lie too much. I reckon if everyone was more honest we wouldn't have the problems we do. I think it's more of a problem of the society we live in. All a person can do is set the best example they can. It's a matter of individual responsibility to the society we live in.

[Rupert]

That's what people say when judges set precedents that they don't agree with. Its often mis-used.

It really only applies to when a judge disregards the precedent set by a higher court.

I know.

More examples?

[bing_oh]

A case in point would be a certain rape case in NC that cost a DA his job. Criminals go free too often and leo's who violate the law get away with it too often. It isn't a perfect system because people lie too much. I reckon if everyone was more honest we wouldn't have the problems we do. I think it's more of a problem of the society we live in. All a person can do is set the best example they can. It's a matter of individual responsibility to the society we live in.

Here we are, right back to the idea of a lack of individual responsibility that I was complaining about however many pages back. Until people not only take individual responibility but teach it to the next generation (something that seems to be happening less and less anymore), society's problems will continue and even grow worse.

[Raza]

Them durn yung'uns!

[dazzleman]

Here we are, right back to the idea of a lack of individual responsibility that I was complaining about however many pages back. Until people not only take individual responibility but teach it to the next generation (something that seems to be happening less and less anymore), society's problems will continue and even grow worse.

I couldn't agree more.

The Duke case, of course, was not really about personal responsibility, but about an elected DA deliberately prosecuting innocent people in order to curry favor with those who resented those he prosecuted for reasons of wealth, gender and race.

Come to think of it, that whole case really was the antithesis of personal responsibility -- it was about prosecuting representatives of a group, without regard to any crime that the individuals may or may not have committed, based upon the perceived "crimes" of that group.  There's little more un-American than that.

[Tave]

Didn't know you were a lawyer, Tave.

I'm taking the LSAT next week.

[bing_oh]

I'm taking the LSAT next week.

Well, when you're sick of listening to those moldy old law school professors and need somebody to explain how the law works in the real world, let me know.

[Tave]

 

[rohan]

I'm taking the LSAT next week.

So you're trying to become a bottom feeding scumsucker too?  I'm sorry.







kidding
sorta
kinda
not really

[Raza]

Hey man, lawyers are part of the same system you are.  You're as despicable as they are. 

Food for thought.

[bing_oh]

Hey man, lawyers are part of the same system you are.  You're as despicable as they are. 

Food for thought.

I've been called alot of nasty things in my career, but putting me on the same level as a lawyer is going too far.

[dazzleman]

Hey man, lawyers are part of the same system you are.  You're as despicable as they are. 

Food for thought.

If they do their jobs right, police are there to hold people accountable for doing evil things.
Lawyers, on the other hand, are there to help people evade responsibility for doing evil things.

That doesn't sound equal to me.

Of course, that's an oversimplification, but it's a lot closer to the truth than some of the stuff you've said.

[Tave]

Lawyers, on the other hand, are there to help people evade responsibility for doing evil things.

You can't possibly believe that...

[dazzleman]

You can't possibly believe that...

Have you ever watched a defense lawyer abusing technicalities to free a clearly guilty person?  I sure as hell do believe that that's how it works in practice a good percentage of the time.

Of course, I understand that everybody should have representation, and that people are innocent until proven guilty.  I just wish we had a system that worked better in deciding guilt vs. innocence on the true facts of the case, not technicalities that can be exploited by sleazy and unscrupulous lawyers.

[Tave]

Defense lawyers who actively assist criminals in avoiding punishment for their crimes must account for....maybe 5% of all lawyers, if that. OJ drew a lot of press, but spectacles like that are the exception rather than the rule.

Lawyers exist for no other reason than to provide people legal counsel. Our country considers their use an inalienable right of every citizen. I'd hardly call that "evil."


Our justice system is one of the best in the world, IMO, and I would rather give a guilty man the tools to defend himself than take away rights from everyone else.



Think, for a second, about what the average lawyer does. Is he defending top-level drug dealers and mass murderers, or is he drafting the latest copy of Uncle Bob and Aunt Sue's will?

[dazzleman]

Defense lawyers who actively assist criminals in avoiding punishment for their crimes must account for....maybe 5% of all lawyers, if that. OJ drew a lot of press, but spectacles like that are the exception rather than the rule.

Lawyers exist for no other reason than to provide people legal counsel. Our country considers their use an inalienable right of every citizen. I'd hardly call that "evil."


Our justice system is one of the best in the world, IMO, and I would rather give a guilty man the tools to defend himself than take away rights from everyone else.

5%?  Considering that most defendants are actually guilty, the number has to be a lot higher than that.

I think that our system is great in theory, but works poorly in practice much of the time.  For that, lawyers are partly responsible.  It will never be a perfect system because it's beholden to human frailties and prejudices.

On the other side of things, just look at the Duke case.  It was basically a DA bringing up 4 young men on false charges because they were judged guilty due to their gender, race and class, and the public that he was playing to wanted exactly that.

So it's hard for the system to be better than the public it serves, and in some jurisdictions, that's pretty piss poor.  The OJ case is but one prominent example.  The reality is, a verdict depends not so much on the facts of the case, but the venue in which the case is tried.  That's not justice.

[Tave]

5%?  Considering that most defendants are actually guilty, the number has to be a lot higher than that.

You missed the point. Most lawyers are not criminal defense attorneys.

[dazzleman]

You missed the point. Most lawyers are not criminal defense attorneys.

OK, you're right about that.  That's primarily who I've been talking about.

But don't get me started on the trial lawyers.  Under their effective control, the civil justice system is little more than a cross between a lottery, and legalized extortion.

[dazzleman]

Besides which, most defense attorneys are public defenders. You're talking about an extreme minority of all lawyers, and then using that to make value judgments about the entire profession.


Sort of like when someone on this board uses the actions of one dirty cop to bash all LEOs....

I'm bashing the whole system more than lawyers, per se.  I have no faith in our justice system.  I wish I could, but I don't.

[Tave]

OK, you're right about that.  That's primarily who I've been talking about.

Then you're talking mostly about public defenders, because they account for the bulk of criminal defense attorneys.

[dazzleman]

Then you're talking mostly about public defenders, because they account for the bulk of criminal defense attorneys.

I realize that.  The only reason the system can function at all is that most public defenders are too overwhelmed to put the time into exploiting the system's weaknesses to free their guilty clients.

The reality is that if you're up on charges, and you have enough money to spend, you can either get the charges dropped or seriously reduced in most cases.  Justice in America is for sale.  There's no denying it.

[Tave]

You think most public defenders want to actively free their guilty clients?

[dazzleman]

You think most public defenders want to actively free their guilty clients?

I think most public defenders have too heavy a caseload to care.  But what is their job, other than to represent their clients, and in doing so try to twist and distort the facts of the case to make it appear to the jury that the defendant is innocent when he is in fact guilty?

Do you really think that lawyers care if their clients are guilty, and will go back out and visit additional atrocities on the population after they're freed?

[Tave]

I think most public defenders have too heavy a caseload to care.  But what is their job, other than to represent their clients, and in doing so try to twist and distort the facts of the case to make it appear to the jury that the defendant is innocent when he is in fact guilty?

Their job is to provide their client legal counsel. They advise him or her of their rights and options. In most cases, they work out plea bargains between the guilty person and the DA. In other words, they help send the person to jail.

Do you really think that lawyers care if their clients are guilty, and will go back out and visit additional atrocities on the population after they're freed?

Public defenders? Of course.

[dazzleman]

Their job is to provide their client legal counsel. They advise him or her of their rights and options. In most cases, they work out plea bargains between the guilty person and the DA. In other words, they help send the person to jail.

Public defenders? Of course.

I realize I'm overstating my case.  You're probably more right than I am.  But I've seen a number of miscarriages of justice over the years that have left me with a deep anger and cynicism toward the justice system, and those who manipulate the system to perpetrate these injustices.

You, on the other hand, are a freshly minted lawyer, having heard all the bromides about how beautiful the system is.

Let's see what you say in 20 years.

[Tave]

I said I was taking the LSAT next week, which is the admission test. I've not set foot inside a law school yet.


To be honest, I'm more interested in mineral and property law. If I do decide to go to law school, I'll probably be one of those lawyers helping big oil rape the environment.

[dazzleman]

I said I was taking the LSAT next week, which is the admission test. I've not set foot inside a law school yet.


To be honest, I'm more interested in mineral and property law. If I do decide to go to law school, I'll probably be one of those lawyers helping big oil rape the environment.

Sorry man, I got confused.  I thought you were taking the bar exam.

Don't get me wrong.  There is a place in society for lawyers.  I considered becoming one.

BTW, good luck on the exam. 

[Secret Chimp]

If I were her I'd just drive without a license, just real careful-like :P