Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-16-2014, 09:27 AM
 
1,696 posts, read 1,714,788 times
Reputation: 1450

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
If the client is known (with absolute certainty) to be guilty of the crime, then justice is not served by errors in the legal system (failure of the state to prove thier case).

If there is a shadow of a doubt regarding guilt, then of course a client should be defended with all vigor. However, when guilt is 100% certain, perhaps a less vigorous "defense" should be made to protect a criminal.
Then you get dragged through endless appeals because the defense wasn't adequate -- which is also the way the system is supposed to work.

Otherwise, you've got the lawyers making the determination on guilt/innocence before we ever get to trial. Secret justice was one of the things our Constitution was written to circumvent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2014, 09:27 AM
 
1,730 posts, read 1,362,280 times
Reputation: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck View Post
It's what lawyers do..
Yeah, I'm sure that 12 year old agreed. Not a big deal, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,365,577 times
Reputation: 73932
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
IMHO, there is a big difference between representing a defense client, and pulling out all the stops to get them off with the least possible punishment. Doing the later is really in the lawyers interest, to up their reputation, than it is for the good of society. Hillary is really all about Hillary. She's a classic sociopath, I think. Everything in her life is about getting to the top. I'm sure she stayed married to Bill, only because she thought it would be better for her career.
Sorry.

Lawyers cannot ethically half-ass their work bc of their feelings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 09:40 AM
 
46,951 posts, read 25,990,037 times
Reputation: 29442
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoD Guy View Post
Yeah, I'm sure that 12 year old agreed. Not a big deal, right?
If "everybody knew he was guilty", the fault lies with the DA and the police for not doing their job.

I realize you hate her, but if a DA botches an open-and-shut case, the defense lawyer is 100% obligated to use that on behalf of his/her client. That's how adversarial systems work.

Think, people. Do you really want a justice system without guaranteed access to competent counsel?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 09:42 AM
 
46,951 posts, read 25,990,037 times
Reputation: 29442
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie View Post
IMHO, there is a big difference between representing a defense client, and pulling out all the stops to get them off with the least possible punishment. Doing the later is really in the lawyers interest, to up their reputation, than it is for the good of society.
No. Failing to do the latter is malpractice. It is very, very good for society that prosecutors and DAs and police forces have to do everything by the book.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 10:09 AM
 
3,875 posts, read 3,871,171 times
Reputation: 2527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
Her job or not, she did not have to take this case. If she felt he was guilty, to go ahead with getting a child rapist off with a slap on the wrist, that is appalling. I dont care if that is her job, she chose to do it.

But augie is right. Hillary has always been about Hillary.
If you listen to the interview it seems between the laughter that she took great pleasure in helping someone she BELIEVED to be a pedophile rapist escape justice.

Definitely NOT the moral decent person the media portrays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 10:15 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,841,834 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tilt11 View Post
The Hillary Tapes | Washington Free Beacon

Her job as a lawyer or not, she had a choice to take this case or not it seems. She took it, knew he was guilty, yet worked to get him off with a slap on the wrist. I dont care if it was her job, you cant have morals or good character to knowingly free a child rapist.

Good read on this at the link above.

You dont change DC for the better by electing people like this. You Hillary supporters must be so proud. Along with her not having accomplishments worthy of being President, why on earth would you want someone like this in DC, let alone as our, as your President?
so let me get this straight, you are trying to beat down hillary clinton for actually doing the job that a defense attorney is supposed to do? sorry, even i dont buy that crap. i dont want hillary anywhere near the white house ever again, but i wont hammer her for doing the job she was being paid to do, and that was represent her client to the best of her ability, and get the best possible outcome for her client. anything less would have resulted in her censure by the bar, and possible disbarment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Texas
44,259 posts, read 64,365,577 times
Reputation: 73932
Quote:
Originally Posted by weltschmerz View Post
So, if you think a patient may be guilty of a crime, your medical care is less vigorous and less than stellar?
If the answer is yes, you should be stripped of your licence.
Agreed.

It is not your job to pass judgment. It is to do your job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Stasis
15,823 posts, read 12,465,032 times
Reputation: 8599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper View Post
And watch the low IQ low-information voters blame it on the legal system.

She had the choice to defend or not defend the rapist. She chose to defend him, knowing he was guilty.
About 90% of court cases end in a guilty verdict. Using your logic 9 of 10 accused aren't entitled to a trial where the government must prove it's case before incarcerating or killing you. A defense attorney knows that most of his clients are guilty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2014, 11:20 AM
 
30,065 posts, read 18,665,937 times
Reputation: 20882
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
That isn't how our legal system works, one has to first be proven guilty before they can be called guilty. The prosecution didn't prove without a doubt that he was guilty. That isn't Hillary's fault being the court appointed lawyer. It is also unethical for a lawyer to throw a case just because they think their client might be guilty.
Again- that is why it is a LEGAL SYSTEM, not a JUSTICE SYSTEM. Ideally, a legal system and a justice system should be one in the same. When we have a legal system releasing known criminals, it is far from a justice system.

When there is deviation from what is legal and what is just, it sets the stage for alternative, or vigalante forms of justice.

Let's say I had a close relative who was a victim of a violent crime. The assailant, due to the legal system, was released as "the state could not prove the case". What would I do? I would hunt them down and kill them. Of course, in our "legal system", I would certainly be convicted, despite having achieved justice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:45 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top