Are lawyers, is our legal system, out of control?


Bartram

Bartram

Brand HBCUbian
How can you as a person actually defend the guy in California that killed/raped the little girl? How? :confused:

Ok, you say, how do you know he did it? Ok, granted. I say,,, what if he confesses to you that he did it? I re-submit the previous question.

Why would we defend a person like this? Shouldn't we change the laws and draw the line at the point where someone admitts they did it? Why waste time and money prosecuting the case? :mad:

Seems to me that lawyers/the legal system has become a perpetual money generator. There are some legitimate legal issues that we need lawyers for,, but it seems to me that there is no end to what you can argue or raise as a case as a lawyer and get paid for it no matter how freaking ridiculous or blatantly wrong it is. :mad:
 
Do you know of any cases where a lawyer defended a person who had confessed, and not recanted. There is a difference between defend and represent. Lawyers are taught that everyone is entitled to a go good defense. NO EXCEPTIONS!!! Just because he's accused don't mean he did it.

Now, where a person properly confesses (without some gov't coersion or rights violated to get said confession) then the lawyer cannot defend the guy, but may still represent him. If he has confessed, then the lawyer cannot present evidence to show or suggest he didn't do, because it would be lying to the court. Lawyers are duty bound to be truthful to the court. So, the lawyer is not supposed to put on a defense in that case. But he must still represent his client. That's where the lawyer tries to broker an acceptable plea bargain.

But people routinely recant "confessions", so lawyers then have to do their duty to get those confessions quashed (thrown out) and then defend their client. He may then put on evidence that suggests his client's innocence in attempts to raise a reasonable doubt.

The system ain't perfect, but you won't find one better. And what you're suggesting is just plain wrong. Just hang 'em without a trial or without competent counsel. That dog won't hunt, guy.
 

Well if you're a defense attorney, you have to do your job no matter how the client.
 
Didn't intend to kill the debate.

Anyway, when I was in law school in ethics class, these issues were hotly discussed. I mean, if a guy is willing to pay you large sums of money to represent him, and you honestly believe him to be guilty, it ain't easy to simply walk away from the money. After all, your belief ain't fact.

One thing I always said I wouldn't do, and try not to do, is ask the ultimate question. DID YOU DO IT??? Most times, they gonna say no, even if they did it. But some guys have been straight up and said "yep, I did it." At that point, I inform them that I couldn't take there case to trial, but I'd work towards a good plea bargain that'll keep them out of jail. Probation, a fine, and maybe restitution.

But when someone pays you their money, later tells you they did it, but still expect you to defend them, you got problems. If your conscience will allow you to vigorously defend them, knowing that you and your client is lying to the court, go for it. Judges don't always allow you to withdraw. If you put his lying arse on the stand, knowing he gonna lie, it may come back to bite you in the arse. If you just tell him "tell your story," everybody in the courtroom will know he's about to lie and you ain't trying to be a part of it. Dead giveaway.

This job causes a lot of stress. Guess that's why I'm totally bald now. :D
 
It's good to know the definition of Represent and Defend. That definitely draws the line of how an accused person is perceived.
 
You are a good "lawyer" Robber, but

This is PRECISELY what i'm talking about. The profession has turned this into a battle of word-smithing and the ability to "win an argument", not necessarily to obtain justice. How can you "represent" someone that admits (lets just say the guy admits to it for the sake of argument) to something of the nature of this example? Very simple, it's about money, and that's exactly what i'm talking about. It's not about right and wrong. What about a little girl who is slaughtered and raped? Where is all the word-smithing and lawyer speak for her? AH,,, I tell you where,, with HER lawyers. Either way, the slick fatcat lawyers win.

Also, I said, if the person admits guilt, I didn't say anything about "overwhelming evidence" and assuming them guilty.

In response to your contension that there could be a confession forced from a subject, then how about this; change the law so that a person can choose to either plead guilty WITHOUT further representation and expeditious sentencing,, OR plead guilty with continued representation.

Take this case in Washington state where this cop reported to a call about a man running down the highway naked. The cop gets there, maces the man in attempts to subdue him, is hesitant to use force on the man, but in the process the man somehow manages to get the cops gun and then shoots the cop in front of people on the highway.

Why did the man have to shoot the cop? You telling me that a lawyer can defend this man and attempt to get him the lightest punishment possible even in a case where there were multiple witnesses to him capping the policeman when he didn't have to? Yes they can, but this is an attrocity reguardless of the lawyer speak to justify it based on the LAWS put in place by lawyers. YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! :lmao:
 
Sometimes I dislike prosecutors more than defenders for the depths they'll stoop to to get someone convicted.
 
What About the Victims?!!! WHAT ABOUT THE VICTiMS I SAY?!!!

You know,,,, yall can say whatever about these (well some of them,, not all lawyers) lawyers and all this "noble" protect the defendant's rights and all,,,, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FRIGGIN' VICTIM?????!!!!! There is no way you can justify the fait of the victum in crimes!

Oh, and don't look now. Watch the lawyers descend upon the tragedy of the coal miners like friggin' vultures on road kill. WATCH!! :redhot: Let's see,,,,, what will the carpetbagging lawyers come up with on this one?? Just as sure as I'm sitting here,,, they will bring a lawsuite against the coal company for "negligence" or something. WATCH! More on this in another thread. :mad:
 
Do you have some kinda axe to grind against lawyers??? Let's see what you do the first time someone seriously injures you or a loved one. And this garbage about pleading without representation, they already have that option. Nobody is required to have an attorney. But if they want one, they can. If they can't afford one, they can get one appointed.

No matter how bad the crime, the attorney should always work for the best deal, if possible. That ain't defending. That's representing. I already explained the difference. So, in your example, if he pleads guilty, there is no harm in getting him a plea bargain. But hey, just string 'em up when they confess. Execute 'em all. BULLISHT!!! He goes to jail. That's his punishment.

You talk about how it's all about money, as if you know. Do you go to work and turn down your check on payday??? I'm guessing you don't. But you expect attorneys to not get paid. We put a lot of time, effort and money to get the knowledge we have. It costs to put it to use. We offer a service, if you want it, you gotta pay for it. Are you gonna feed us if we turn down the cases you don't think a person deserves an attorney??? Again, I'm guessing no.

As for the victim, we operate under the premise of "innocent until proven guilty". Even where there is a confession, a person is guilty only when the court deems him so. Like I said, confessions can be recanted at any time. He still has a constitutional right to a fair trial. It ain't our problem that you don't like his rights. I just know it ain't wise to start taking away rights because you don't like what happened. The lawyer speak for the victim comes from the prosecution. It's their responsibility to see that the victim did not suffer in vain. The victim does have attorneys. Always did. Always will.

The defendant is the one on trial. He's the one facing the punishment. So he is entitled to a fair shot at defending himself.
 
Robber, you get an A this semester!

Laymen always raise this issue, and have a problem with lawyers UNTIL their liberty is on the line. Until they have been falsely accused, until their child is locked up, until some criminal kicks their door in and steals precious possessions from their home, etc. THEN the love and understanding for what lawyers do and say comes flowing down. ;)

It is not a problem-free system, but the American justice system sure is the BEST.

Don't take my word for it, STUDY the administration of criminal justice in other and countries and you will say the Bill of Rights BACKWARDS!
 
Was Anybody Watching Inside Edition Tonight??

Did you see this MAGGOT that was high on methanphetamines and killed a man's wife, and two daughters,,, one like 4 the other 6 or 7?

And here you have these,,, these,,,,,,,, :redhot: lawyers actually fighting for this SCUM??!!!!!!! :redhot:

I don't blame ole boy ONE BIT for attempting to jump the maggot scum that escaped the death penalty because of all the bullskate legal gobbledie-gook!!!

How you people will sit here and rationalize that as "right" I will never know as long as i FRIGGIN' LIVE!!!!!!!!! :redhot: :redhot:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top