Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I meant "good" as in they can get their clients off, not as in they are good and ethical people in general. I certainly do not respect the lawyer who got OJ off.
I meant "good" as in they can get their clients off, not as in they are good and ethical people in general. I certainly do not respect the lawyer who got OJ off.
Oh...nothing meant towards your post....I understand perfectly. The word "good" being used to describe an unethical attorney getting his clients off, knowing very well they are guilty as sin.
They don't care, simple as that. They are just as much scum as the people they represent, only for them its legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanman13
^ How did your trial end?
Gov't can seize but they need to prove their reasoning for seizure. We dealt with an automobile seizure and my main point was that cars are such a necessary tool for Americans... to have the gov't just take it for investigation without any solid reasoning is Constitutionally unacceptable. It is a violation of Due Process IMHO.
Oh...nothing meant towards your post....I understand perfectly. The word "good" being used to describe an unethical attorney getting his clients off, knowing very well they are guilty as sin.
Lawyers don't get anybody "off" because they aren't "on" in the first place. The state has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the state fails to meet its burden, the state loses.
Oh...nothing meant towards your post....I understand perfectly. The word "good" being used to describe an unethical attorney getting his clients off, knowing very well they are guilty as sin.
It's not unethical. What would be unethical would be for the lawyer to decide who is guilty, and to withhold his best services frm the defendant because he thinks the defendant should be punished.
The criminal justice system can't work without a defense bar willing to take on all cases and to hold the state to its burden of proof. Otherwise we have a system where the prosecutor decides on the charge, decides the defendant is guilty, and decides on the punishment. All those who are fond of talking about our constitutional rights should keep in mind the constitutional right not to be punished unless the state proves the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Oh...nothing meant towards your post....I understand perfectly. The word "good" being used to describe an unethical attorney getting his clients off, knowing very well they are guilty as sin.
"Unethical?" On the contrary, he has an ethical obligation to zealously advocate for his client's interests. There's a bigger issue at stake to providing a vigorous defense to people who are, on the surface anyway, obivously guilty, and that's making sure the government has a solid case before they can throw someone in jail or otherwise deprive them of their liberties. The integrity of our judicial system depends on it. I don't want to live in a society where a vigorous defense against state charges is considered "unethical." We call that a "police state."
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTraik
They don't care, simple as that. They are just as much scum as the people they represent, only for them its legal.
Spend some time with a criminal defense attorney some day. Those "scum" are there to defend your rights when the state decides to put you on trial too. The burnout rate for criminal defense attorneys is extremely high because, contrary to the trite cynical bullcrap like you posted, they actually do have a conscience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.