Should Lawyers be "Held Accountable" for their Choice of Clients? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15006871
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/05/ ... of-clients

Recently, Harvard fired a Dean of their law school because he had defended Harvey Weinstein, an allegedly notoriously abusive Hollywood producer. IMHO, this shows the classism of the left in all its nakedness; why even have lawyers if they can be punished for defending the wrong people, or at the most coherent this position can get, certain classes of people are allowed lawyers and other classes aren't? This is, again, extreme classism masquerading as liberalism and it's a wonder to me that there are people who are still fooled now that this kind of thing has reached the top of academia.
#15006882
Good point though.
I personally believe that once a crime is proven with definitive and objective facts, then the person should lose the right to a trial.
Like if a child molester was caught in action or on CCTV or whatever evidence that proves he\she absolutely committed the crime, he\she shouldn't have trials, rather direct rule of punishment by a judge.
This ofcourse should only be reserved to higher undisputed crimes.

Like Hillary Clinton for example, though I'm not fully informed on the case in question, defended a rapist who she knew was guilty, but kept on and won hem a light sentence. I would rightly describe such action to be immoral and worthy of punishment as a conspiracy to a crime in and of itself.

If you know someone did a horrible crime and was absolutely guilty, and chose to help them and get them out of punishment, then you would indeed be immoral and, quite honestly, despicable.
#15006885
anasawad wrote:Good point though.
I personally believe that once a crime is proven with definitive and objective facts, then the person should lose the right to a trial.
Like if a child molester was caught in action or on CCTV or whatever evidence that proves he\she absolutely committed the crime, he\she shouldn't have trials, rather direct rule of punishment by a judge.
This ofcourse should only be reserved to higher undisputed crimes.

Like Hillary Clinton for example, though I'm not fully informed on the case in question, defended a rapist who she knew was guilty, but kept on and won hem a light sentence. I would rightly describe such action to be immoral and worthy of punishment as a conspiracy to a crime in and of itself.

If you know someone did a horrible crime and was absolutely guilty, and chose to help them and get them out of punishment, then you would indeed be immoral and, quite honestly, despicable.

The point of having a lawyer is part of the process of determining if someone is guilty and things like chain of custody and the reliability of evidence suggest that someone should always, at least in some nominal form, have legal representation. This would apply even if the evidence is strong and the amount of procedure is a somewhat separate issue from whether or not they get representation in the first place.

Second, regarding Hillary's famous example. One issue here is not that she did it but that she laughed about it later. If it's your job and it's in line with perceived values of fairness then you can in theory do it without finding it funny.
#15006886
@anasawad
Even if there is video proof of someone killing another person, it will need to be judged in a court of law to determine the circumstances, to see if it was premeditated murder, self defence, or anything in between.
The sentence should be commensurate to the circumstances and the facts.
Maybe the victim had threatened him, or maybe he was sleeping with his wife, or something, to be judged and taken into account.
#15006887
@Ter
@anasawad
Even if there is video proof of someone killing another person, it will need to be judged in a court of law to determine the circumstances, to see if it was premeditated murder, self-defense, or anything in between.
The sentence should be commensurate to the circumstances and the facts.
Maybe the victim had threatened him, or maybe he was sleeping with his wife, or something, to be judged and taken into account.


Sure, but there is a difference, in the example you mentioned, between a self-defense case, manslaughter, insanity, premeditated murder, etc.
If someone attacked you and you ended up killing them in the following fight, that's self-defense.
If you accidentally, unwillingly, unknowingly, or uncontrollably killed someone, that's manslaughter or temporary insanity.
If, say, you killed someone for payment (hit), or you kidnapped and killed a stranger because you like killing. That's premeditated murder.
There is a significant legal and social difference between those things; Even though the end result is the same, someone being killed that is, in all of them.

If, on the other hand, let's say, for example, someone kidnapped a child and was caught later on with the child in his\her house with clear signs of being molested or rape. That's not much open for interpretation, the crime is done and we know it's done. Further, there are no external factors that would prompt such a crime or excuse it.

Another example is human traffickers if they were caught in the act, trafficking lets say kidnapped girls for sex slavery. What's more in there to be left for a trial? What possible excuse could there be for such crime?


@Hong Wu
The point of having a lawyer is part of the process of determining if someone is guilty and things like chain of custody and the reliability of evidence suggest that someone should always, at least in some nominal form, have legal representation. This would apply even if the evidence is strong and the amount of procedure is a somewhat separate issue from whether or not they get representation in the first place.

True, but guilt is not always open for doubt; Sometimes, the guilt of a person is already known in advance with undeniable evidence.
The flaws of this model are revealed when pushed to its extremes. As is the case with any model of conduct or system might I say.
Take for example mob bosses, everyone knows who they are, everyone knows they're guilty in a whole array of crimes that just a handful of them would be more sufficient to justify the death penalty, yet they always keep getting away because they are given the luxury of a trial where they can use legal loopholes to get out.

Now, I'm not saying we should dispose of the right to a trial in all crimes or conducts; What I am saying is that there should be certain clearly defined exceptions that can nullify this right if fulfilled.

Second, regarding Hillary's famous example. One issue here is not that she did it but that she laughed about it later. If it's your job and it's in line with perceived values of fairness then you can, in theory, do it without finding it funny.

In what way defending a horrible crime when there is an admission of guilt by the offender qualify as legit or morally acceptable?
Being your job is not an excuse, on many occasions, soldiers are given order to commit massacres and war crimes and it is their job to follow these orders. It does not, however, stop them from being considered war criminals.
They can regret it, not find it funny, and feel ashamed of it, sure; Still, they're war criminals, the crime was done, and punishment will be dealt regardless of regret or shame.
#15006888
anasawad wrote:Sure, but there is a difference, in the example you mentioned, between a self-defense case, manslaughter, insanity, premeditated murder, etc.
If someone attacked you and you ended up killing them in the following fight, that's self-defense.
If you accidentally, unwillingly, unknowingly, or uncontrollably killed someone, that's manslaughter or temporary insanity.
If, say, you killed someone for payment (hit), or you kidnapped and killed a stranger because you like killing. That's premeditated murder.
There is a significant legal and social difference between those things; Even though the end result is the same, someone being killed that is, in all of them.


So you agree that the accused gets a trial to establish motive and circumstances, you are making my point.

anasawad wrote:Another example is human traffickers if they were caught in the act, trafficking lets say kidnapped girls for sex slavery. What's more in there to be left for a trial? What possible excuse could there be for such crime?


Even in those seemingly very clear-cut cases, it would be wise to have a formal trial. Sometimes they put the label "human trafficker" on a person supplying regular labour. I see it happening here in BD.
So just for justice's sake, give them a trial with a lawyer to assist them.
#15006890
@Ter
Not a trial where they get to use all sorts of loopholes and plea for emotions that's for sure.
If the evidence objectively convicts the person with premeditated murder and leaves no place for any justification, then a trial wouldn't do anything other than help them muddy the water and potentially escape punishment.
People who kill for fun, or for ideological, religious, or political reasons aren't exactly uncommon, and in many if not most cases, there are objective and irrefutable evidence convicting them.




For human trafficking, they do, and by they I mean people and the media, not the law.
Someone helping illegal immigration is, though still a crime and jeopardizes national security, not a human trafficker or a slaver.
Someone supplying businesses with laborers that were taken against their will and kept there without their rights or anything, that's a human trafficker even if the purpose is the provision of regular labor. And also, obviously, slavery.

The difference between those two cases can and is known before it ever reaches trial, irregardless of what media narrative running in the day.
And I did state that their punishment will be considered by a judge in the first place, not some random police officer acting as executioner. So in a way, they get a trial in that a judge validates the case evidence, and deals punishment if appropriate.
#15006894
anasawad wrote:@Ter

Sure, but there is a difference, in the example you mentioned, between a self-defense case, manslaughter, insanity, premeditated murder, etc.
If someone attacked you and you ended up killing them in the following fight, that's self-defense.
If you accidentally, unwillingly, unknowingly, or uncontrollably killed someone, that's manslaughter or temporary insanity.
If, say, you killed someone for payment (hit), or you kidnapped and killed a stranger because you like killing. That's premeditated murder.
There is a significant legal and social difference between those things; Even though the end result is the same, someone being killed that is, in all of them.

If, on the other hand, let's say, for example, someone kidnapped a child and was caught later on with the child in his\her house with clear signs of being molested or rape. That's not much open for interpretation, the crime is done and we know it's done. Further, there are no external factors that would prompt such a crime or excuse it.

Another example is human traffickers if they were caught in the act, trafficking lets say kidnapped girls for sex slavery. What's more in there to be left for a trial? What possible excuse could there be for such crime?


@Hong Wu

True, but guilt is not always open for doubt; Sometimes, the guilt of a person is already known in advance with undeniable evidence.
The flaws of this model are revealed when pushed to its extremes. As is the case with any model of conduct or system might I say.
Take for example mob bosses, everyone knows who they are, everyone knows they're guilty in a whole array of crimes that just a handful of them would be more sufficient to justify the death penalty, yet they always keep getting away because they are given the luxury of a trial where they can use legal loopholes to get out.

Now, I'm not saying we should dispose of the right to a trial in all crimes or conducts; What I am saying is that there should be certain clearly defined exceptions that can nullify this right if fulfilled.


In what way defending a horrible crime when there is an admission of guilt by the offender qualify as legit or morally acceptable?
Being your job is not an excuse, on many occasions, soldiers are given order to commit massacres and war crimes and it is their job to follow these orders. It does not, however, stop them from being considered war criminals.
They can regret it, not find it funny, and feel ashamed of it, sure; Still, they're war criminals, the crime was done, and punishment will be dealt regardless of regret or shame.

Admissions of guilt can be coerced. The whole notorious mob boss thing is a dilemma but the flaw does not necessarily lie in whether or not he would be allowed a lawyer; there's a lot of things that need to go wrong for someone to get away with criminal notoriety.
#15006900
Hong Wu wrote:https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/05/lawyers-are-responsible-for-their-choice-of-clients

Recently, Harvard fired a Dean of their law school because he had defended Harvey Weinstein, an allegedly notoriously abusive Hollywood producer. IMHO, this shows the classism of the left in all its nakedness; why even have lawyers if they can be punished for defending the wrong people, or at the most coherent this position can get, certain classes of people are allowed lawyers and other classes aren't? This is, again, extreme classism masquerading as liberalism and it's a wonder to me that there are people who are still fooled now that this kind of thing has reached the top of academia.


The left prefer show trials anyway. Lawyers are just for their decorative value.
#15006915
@ness31
The same way we determine punishment now. :|


@Hong Wu
It's fairly easy for powerful and rich people to get away with a whole array of crimes actually. A simple glance at any country in the world can show this; And I mean this literally, pick any country at random, and you'll see that rich and powerful people get away with crimes in great ease.

And a great majority of higher and horrendous crimes in the world are done by people who are either rich and powerful or backed by ones.


There are also horrendous crimes done by regular people who get away with it simply because they went free from trial.
I say the best way to ensure justice is to remove double jeopardy laws and make exceptions for trial by jury laws wherein a certain set of crimes that goes way beyond and make it at the very least a trial purely by a judge or judges.

Now, you can disagree with me, and I understand that; But from what 've seen in the world, many groups and offenders should get the bullet right when their guilt is proven, no trial no bullshit waiting.



EDIT:
To clarify by specific examples on what I mean;
Example 1:
Cases of child brides for example, pretty common in some countries, and the girls are often very very young.
In that case, I'd dare anyone here to come and try convincing me how this is not a clear cut guilt of child rape and molestation.
Someone in that case, I'd argue, shouldn't be given a trial by jury, only a judge specifying the punishment and end the case.

Example 2:
Sex trafficking, very common in many parts of the world and spreading where certain gangs and mobs kidnap young girls and boys and sell and rent them out as sex slaves.
In such cases, the offenders should not get the luxury of a trial by jury.
And let's be clear, this is a major problem all across the world right now with over 30 million people being victims of such groups.
Heck, I'd say a bullet in the head on sight would be an even more efficient rule for those.

Example 3:
Abuse of power and corruption by people of power be they politicians, public officials, upper class very wealthy people, or yes even crime bosses.
Those almost always get away with their crimes because giving them a trial is giving them a chance to manipulate the justice system to get away with it.

Example 4:
As mentioned previously, clear cut cases of higher crimes like rape or child molestation or even serial murders where the offender is caught in the act by a certain means (directly, or taped, etc).
Those shouldn't get trial by jury, a judge deciding their punishment based on existing laws for each crime is best for everyone else involved.
#15006918
So for ‘clear cut’ crimes where there is no doubt about the perpetrator you would dispense with a jury and trial and have the judge skip straight to the sentencing part?

I’m curious as to what judges would say about your idea. They would still have a job so there is no threat to their livelihood and couldn’t be accused of bias.
But something tells me these experts, these judges who mete out justice on a daily basis wouldn’t want to see things changed ;)

2cents

Edit - trial by judge alone already exists..but the trial still happens.
#15006924
@anasawad

I am sympathetic to your point of view but there are many and obvious reasons not to implement it.

A murderer might be mentally incapable of understanding that killing is wrong. Such people are sent to psychiatric institutions for the criminally insane.

If you execute a man because he married an underage girl, then you leave that girl behind as a widow, in many countries not easy to get remarried in that situation.
#15007067
Ter wrote:@anasawad

I am sympathetic to your point of view but there are many and obvious reasons not to implement it.

A murderer might be mentally incapable of understanding that killing is wrong. Such people are sent to psychiatric institutions for the criminally insane.

If you execute a man because he married an underage girl, then you leave that girl behind as a widow, in many countries not easy to get remarried in that situation.

In what way can we not make a certain, pre-defined, exceptions to the criminal justice system?

If someone is mentally incapable of processing his own actions, then that's insanity, a defined law already exists for that.
If we are to allow a girl to be continuously and constantly raped, especially a little girl, a child, and not punish her rapist because it would be "socially" unacceptable; Then, on one hand, there would be something wrong with us, and, on the other hand, something is terribly wrong in that society and should be overhauled, by force if necessary.
The Next UK PM everybody...

Had Symonds made an accusation against him, it wou[…]

I am not interested in your semantics debate abou[…]

The extradition bill was necessary , in order to […]

1. The USA is not a real country in the historic […]