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

[bing_oh]

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

Um, yea. That's what defense lawyers do. The vast majority of defense lawyers know their clients are guilty yet would happily get them off scott free. At the very least, they strive to get a minimum punishment, no matter what the charges are against them.

And, while most lawyers aren't criminal defense lawyers, you can find lawyers of all shapes and sizes screwing up things throughout society. Don't like the laws? Most politicians (who write those laws) are lawyers. So are the judges who interpet the laws. Corporations emply vast legions of lawyers to make things overly complicated and defend their clients against wrongdoing...as in individual, try to sue a big corporation over some wrongdoing and see how fair that game is. The insurance you pay for is so expensive because of lawyers and lawsuits, many of them frivolous.

Let's be perfectly honest, lawyers are the bane of modern society.

[rohan]

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

Food for thought.

No we're not part of the same system- at least not in the real world.  We don't do back room deals with the other scumbag lawyers in the prosecutor's office that before they were hired in the prosecutor's office were working for as a defense lawyer- and that goes double for judges.  Every single judge in this county was a defense lawyer before he became a judge.  EVERY ONE.  Guess which side they usually take in the court room- and judges aren't supposed to take sides they're supposed to be unbiased- but that's not what happens.  And- when it comes to criminal cases we police officers have to be objective and actually seek the truth no matter where it leads us- lawyers seek to bend the truth until it's unrecognizable.

[rohan]

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?

The average lawyer does both probably.  I think that you'l find it's not quite that clear cut what lawyers do- especially when it comes to ethics inside the court house walls.

[rohan]

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.

I don't think I agree with that Bing- most laws are pretty black and white- it's either you can do it or you can't do it- it's either legal or illegal.  It's the lawyers that make it gray- I'm not just talkign about the defense lawyers I'm talking about all of them in the process that only want to speed things up or get them off the docket- and judges are a huge part of that problem and encourage unethical backroom dealing.

[Tave]

At the very least, they strive to get a minimum punishment, no matter what the charges are against them.

You expect a defense attorney to seek the maximum punishment for his or her client?


Have you received a strong blow to the head recently?

[James Young]

My guess is that the school is using it as a revenue generator.

Only if the school district gets to keep the money.  This has been suggested as a method of funding schools so you?re not that far off.

. . .the bus driver is the witness (who is trained to deal with people running the bus lights as most states mandate).

You are assuming evidence not yet submitted.  A witness is simply that, a witness, and their testimony may or may not be valuable.  At what point is a bus driver trained to ?deal with people running the bus lights??  Do they chase the miscreant down with the bus and confront them on the street?  Or do they merely file a report? 

I am willing to bet you would be bested by the bus driver.

A fool?s bet.  Why would you being willing to wager on something about which you have no basis to make a prediction other than your disdain for my skepticism of the motives of those who write and enforce traffic laws?

I would have responded earlier but have been hunting and fishing in Montana for the past 10 days.

[James Young]

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.

dazzleman, that?s a particularly poor analysis, especially compared to your usually sound observations.  LE?s role is to identify violations of law, not evil.  Sometimes, as in the case of murder or rape, they are synonymous; sometimes, as in the case of traffic enforcement for money, the evil is the enforcement itself; too often, however, LE in the form of local and/or state police can do nothing about evil.  For example, dangerous consumer products, illegally using pension funds to shore up a failing company, or manipulating energy markets in California to make billions for a few traders are all evil and illegal but we certainly cannot rely on the police ? even the federal police in the form of the FBI ? to detect or prevent their occurrence. 
For that, we must rely on attorneys, at least one of the many roles that attorneys fill.  The primary role of any attorney is to represent their client, to assure that the client is on equal footing with his adversary, especially when the adversary is the state with virtually unlimited resources. 

[James Young]

Every single judge in this county was a defense lawyer before he became a judge.  EVERY ONE.

That's absurd.  Far more judges come from the DA's office than the handful of defense attorneys.

[rohan]

That's absurd.  Far more judges come from the DA's office than the handful of defense attorneys.

So you've been to the courthouse in this county and asked the judges?    Do you have any shred of proof to support your claim?

[James Young]

So you've been to the courthouse in this county and asked the judges?    Do you have any shred of proof to support your claim?

I don't even know what county you are in nor do I care.  I was writing about criminal courts as a whole.  IF that is true for your county, it is an anamoly.

[rohan]

I don't even know what county you are in nor do I care.  I was writing about criminal courts as a whole.  IF that is true for your county, it is an anamoly.

No, you were responding to a specific post I made about judges in this county with this yet unproven bs

That's absurd.  Far more judges come from the DA's office than the handful of defense attorneys.

Here's my post

Every single judge in this county was a defense lawyer before he became a judge.  EVERY ONE.

[Rupert]

rohan, you are using anecdotal evidence. It's not very convincing.

[Soup DeVille]

Well, it would help if we knew which county he was talking about.

[rohan]

rohan, you are using anecdotal evidence. It's not very convincing.

Hint- I'm not trying to be convincing.   but he's still hasn't proven his point that FAR more come from DA's offices- which isn't my experience.

[rohan]

Well, it would help if we knew which county he was talking about.

The one in Michigan.

[Soup DeVille]

The one in Michigan.

if you were still DPD and talking about Wayne, I'd believe you. I know that's not the case in Oakland though- only 1 of the circuit court judges was ever in private practice.

[rohan]

But usually there's only a couple or so circuit judges but there's always at least double that of district judges.  But I honestly have to doubt that all the others were never in private practice- maybe I'm wrong but how many prosecutors can OCPO really employ at one time?
But you point about Wayne county and where I work now is the sum total of my police experience- and they're all defenders here and most or all of them were in Wayne. 

[Soup DeVille]

But usually there's only a couple or so circuit judges but there's always at least double that of district judges.  But I honestly have to doubt that all the others were never in private practice- maybe I'm wrong but how many prosecutors can OCPO really employ at one time?

That's just from a quick read of their bios on the circuit court website- maybe they've left something out, eh?


I wouldn't be surprised at all about Wayne county. Not only is it nationally known for handing out excessive decisions in things like slip and fall cases, every time I've been in a court in the county, it reeked of slime. I like to think that's the exception and not the rule though.

[rohan]

could be- I don't know and I'm not gonna guess.  I just find it hard to believe based on what I've seen. 

[Raza]

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

You have too much confidence in our police force.

[bing_oh]

You expect a defense attorney to seek the maximum punishment for his or her client?

Have you received a strong blow to the head recently?

Do I expect a defense attorney in the current system to seek the maximum punishment? Of course not...that would indicate ethics and a conscience, two things that the vast majority of lawyers were born without or had surgically removed. That's one of the problems with the system...defense attorneys will defend anyone, no matter their guilt, in an attempt to achieve the minimum possible punishment. There's a recent case just south of me where a woman was recently convicted (after a second trial) of killing her infant by cooking it in a microwave oven. She confessed to the crime. Her defense lawyer is trying to get the conviction overturned and get her a third trial. In a just system, the defense attorey would be there to ensure that she received a fair trial and that justice is served for the victim of the crime. Instead, he's trying to manipulate the system to free a convicted killer in a particularly heinous crime.

[Soup DeVille]

Do I expect a defense attorney in the current system to seek the maximum punishment? Of course not...that would indicate ethics and a conscience, two things that the vast majority of lawyers were born without or had surgically removed. That's one of the problems with the system...defense attorneys will defend anyone, no matter their guilt, in an attempt to achieve the minimum possible punishment. There's a recent case just south of me where a woman was recently convicted (after a second trial) of killing her infant by cooking it in a microwave oven. She confessed to the crime. Her defense lawyer is trying to get the conviction overturned and get her a third trial. In a just system, the defense attorey would be there to ensure that she received a fair trial and that justice is served for the victim of the crime. Instead, he's trying to manipulate the system to free a convicted killer in a particularly heinous crime.

Umm, isn't that the prosecutor's job? In a just system, your concept is that both the prosecutor and the defender represent the interests of the victim?

Did I get that right?

[Tave]

 

[James Young]

Soup got it right.  bing_oh's understanding of our system of justice is woefully inadequate.

[bing_oh]

Umm, isn't that the prosecutor's job? In a just system, your concept is that both the prosecutor and the defender represent the interests of the victim?

Did I get that right?

That's not exactly what I was trying to say. The defense attorney's job is to ensure a fair and impartial trial for the defendant, but both the prosecution's and the defense's final goal should be justice. Defending a client whom they know to be guilty of a crime is not the pursuit of justice that they should be serving as agents of the court, it's an intentional manipulation and undercutting of the system.

And, technically, no it's not the prosecutor's job to represent the interests of the victim. The prosecution represents the interests of the state, regardless of the desires of the victim. It's absolutely possible to proceed with prosecution against the wishes of the victim, if those wishes contradict what is viewed as the interests of the state and the People (I've testified on many occasions, for example, in domestic violence cases where the victim requested that the charges be dropped and even lied on the stand to defend the accused). On most occasions, the interests of the state and those of the victim simply happen to coincide and the victim becomes a vital prosecution witness.

[S204STi]

Soup got it right.  bing_oh's understanding of our system of justice is woefully inadequate.

I would imagine that his understanding is actually very intimate and thorough, as it would have to be for an LEO with 10 years' experience.

The difference is in your perspectives.

[Tave]

And, technically, no it's not the prosecutor's job to represent the interests of the victim. The prosecution represents the interests of the state, regardless of the desires of the victim.

If a crime occurs against the state, then the state has been victimized, no?

[hounddog]

That's not exactly what I was trying to say. The defense attorney's job is to ensure a fair and impartial trial for the defendant, but both the prosecution's and the defense's final goal should be justice. Defending a client whom they know to be guilty of a crime is not the pursuit of justice that they should be serving as agents of the court, it's an intentional manipulation and undercutting of the system.

And, technically, no it's not the prosecutor's job to represent the interests of the victim. The prosecution represents the interests of the state, regardless of the desires of the victim. It's absolutely possible to proceed with prosecution against the wishes of the victim, if those wishes contradict what is viewed as the interests of the state and the People (I've testified on many occasions, for example, in domestic violence cases where the victim requested that the charges be dropped and even lied on the stand to defend the accused). On most occasions, the interests of the state and those of the victim simply happen to coincide and the victim becomes a vital prosecution witness.

Bing, ole friend, you got it right and then you got it wrong.

Ultimately, the prosecutors job is only to seek justice and the truth no matter where it leads him.

The defenses job is to attempt shed light on innocence, and in some cases technical properness, and once in a while they even shed light on truth but that is so rare I personally cannot think of a case where it happened.  He is also charged with trying to keep the prosecutor honest, resulting in a fair trial.

It is the judges job to ensure a fair trial.

[hounddog]

If a crime occurs against the state, then the state has been victimized, no?

Correct, sort of.  The proper way to put it would be that the state is the victim. 

[hounddog]

Only if the school district gets to keep the money.  This has been suggested as a method of funding schools so you?re not that far off.

You are assuming evidence not yet submitted.  A witness is simply that, a witness, and their testimony may or may not be valuable.  At what point is a bus driver trained to ?deal with people running the bus lights??  Do they chase the miscreant down with the bus and confront them on the street?  Or do they merely file a report? 

A fool?s bet.  Why would you being willing to wager on something about which you have no basis to make a prediction other than your disdain for my skepticism of the motives of those who write and enforce traffic laws?

I would have responded earlier but have been hunting and fishing in Montana for the past 10 days.

Because, you have demonstrated that you have little actual knowledge of the court system as it pertains to real world workings.