superunknown23
Superstar
people hate lawyers... until they get in trouble
This is why lawyers ... I was too drastic.
- Thread starter Habit
- Start date
Exactly. Everyone is entitled to an attorney to advocate for them to the best of their abilities. How do you know these same attorneys didn't tell this guy to plead guilty in quiet? If the guy wants to go to trial, then you have no choice. Furthermore, if there's evidence or a defense left on the table that attorneys have not exhausted, you can get a retrial just on that basis. So would you rather they exhaust everything now and get shot down or for this entire saga to be extended for more years?
Sandusky was merely accused prior to all of this stuff coming out and the final result. If it was up to you, the dude from Syracuse would be in jail too.
Humanity: where emotion trumps rationality and fairness. Emotion plays a roll, but it has to be guided by reason.
Why is defending a man's right to defend himself against charges immoral?
Say the lawyer has a young son or nephew. Knowing you're trying to get off the guy that would probably get a boner if you showed him their middle school prom picture.
And if he's found innocent like the Syracuse guy accused?
Someone has to defend these guys. It is essential the equality the process purports itself to encompass. It is essential to due process. If these individuals are left to fend for themselves just because the subject they're being accused of is uncomfortable then we cannot really claim to be a system of "innocent until proven guilty". Our legal system would be a mere formality. It is essential to the idea of being American than everyone will have a fair chance (and I know it doesn't happen a lot). What if public defenders could refuse to defend indigent defendants just because they didn't like what they were being charged with.
"Injustice anywhere, is a threat to justice everywhere."
Theyre obligated dude. They tried to resign but the judge forced them to continue also.
OG_StankBrefs
Da Spice...
While i understand da side talkin about "it's their job", part of me also has a bit of scust at some of dese lawyers who defend pretty obvious cases of horrific crimes/acts. I personally wouldn't be able to look myself in da mirror knowin i'm in court defendin a mufukka dat I know dam well is guilty. 
SirSmokeCrackAlot
Senior Crackhead
Metta World Movement
Peace and love...to all!!
The only thing I learned from this thread is that NBC is scum.
SMH @ editing tapes when these guys already look guilty enough as it is.
SMH @ editing tapes when these guys already look guilty enough as it is.
This is an age old debate about the legal system/lawyers and ethics. When I was in an ethics class (it was an interesting course) this Lawyer hit us with two real stories, one he had to deal with and the other was a colleague's case. I'll try to keep it short but this story always stayed with me because how fukked up it was if it was really true, so hear it out if possible.
One story was about a murder in NY state forgot the exact city but it was a long time ago, where the guy on trial had a slight motive and couldn't completely establish an alibi for his exact wherabouts (the lawyer said he was last seen with the victim but that was the best the prosecution had to go on) but the victim's body was never found and they were trying him on real slim circumstantial evidence. Well, this was when the "no body no proof/covict" defense was starting to be used then and his lawyer got him off. The lawyer telling us the story in class was a damn good story teller, silver tongue and all (so I'm probably leaving out some parts) and he said the family of the victims were devastated at the no guilty (obviously) and later on their lives just wasn't the same (job loss, depression) but here was the fukked up part.
Probably like (I forgot the exact time he said), but not long after the trial ended (to which the family was probably even more devastated hearing this or why they really were never the same after) the defense attorney called the police and family and told them were their daughter's body was put up at. They found the body and obviously the defendant was the killer. The killer told his lawyer the full story before the case was about to get started, but he couldn't tell the court for obvious reasons of attorney/client privilege, but had tried to persuade the killer to plead guilty. He also had to fully disclose the defendant chances of beating the case and back then like I said that no body no proof/convict was a strong one back then, the lawyer said with a high success rate so the killer said fukk it take it to trial and just tell them where the girl is after I get off. We was in class like
. Then he was telling us so what would you do?? Since it was an ethics course and that day we were discussing moral dilemmas. The responses were hilarious, but not really for that one but the other story. But just wanted to share that 1st one since the 1st story was more relevant to this thread.
One story was about a murder in NY state forgot the exact city but it was a long time ago, where the guy on trial had a slight motive and couldn't completely establish an alibi for his exact wherabouts (the lawyer said he was last seen with the victim but that was the best the prosecution had to go on) but the victim's body was never found and they were trying him on real slim circumstantial evidence. Well, this was when the "no body no proof/covict" defense was starting to be used then and his lawyer got him off. The lawyer telling us the story in class was a damn good story teller, silver tongue and all (so I'm probably leaving out some parts) and he said the family of the victims were devastated at the no guilty (obviously) and later on their lives just wasn't the same (job loss, depression) but here was the fukked up part.
Probably like (I forgot the exact time he said), but not long after the trial ended (to which the family was probably even more devastated hearing this or why they really were never the same after) the defense attorney called the police and family and told them were their daughter's body was put up at. They found the body and obviously the defendant was the killer. The killer told his lawyer the full story before the case was about to get started, but he couldn't tell the court for obvious reasons of attorney/client privilege, but had tried to persuade the killer to plead guilty. He also had to fully disclose the defendant chances of beating the case and back then like I said that no body no proof/convict was a strong one back then, the lawyer said with a high success rate so the killer said fukk it take it to trial and just tell them where the girl is after I get off. We was in class like
. Then he was telling us so what would you do?? Since it was an ethics course and that day we were discussing moral dilemmas. The responses were hilarious, but not really for that one but the other story. But just wanted to share that 1st one since the 1st story was more relevant to this thread.
Although there takes a certain amount of dishonesty to be ANY kind of lawyer. A defense attorneys job is not just to get the person off from the conviction. Their job is to make sure the client gets and understands all of the rights allotted to him by the laws of the land. A murder still needs a lawyer to enter a guilty plea to make sure all his rights are recognized and he understands what is going on in the court room. The legal system is so fukked and confusing you need a lawyer with you just to understand wtf is going on.
This is an age old debate about the legal system/layers and ethics. When I was in an ethics class (it was an interesting course) this Lawyer hit us with two real stories, one he had to deal with and the other was a colleague's case. I'll try to keep it short but this story always stayed with me because how fukked up it was if it was really true, so hear it out if possible.
One story was about a murder in NY state forgot the exact city but it was a long time ago, where the guy on trial had a slight motive and couldn't completely establish an alibi for his exact wherabouts (the lawyer said he was last seen with the victim but that was the best the prosecution had to go on) but the victim's body was never found and they were trying him on real slim circumstantial evidence. Well, this was when the "no body no proof/covict" defense was starting to be used then and his lawyer got him off. The lawyer telling us the story in class was a damn good story teller, sliver tongue and all (so I'm probably leaving out some parts) and he said the family of the victims were devastated at the no guilty (obviously) and later on their lives just wasn't the same (job loss, depression) but here was the fukked up part.
Probably like (I forgot the exact time he said), but not long after the trial ended (to which the family was probably even more devastated hearing this or why they really were never the same after) the defense attorney called the police and family and told them were their daughter's body was put up at. They found the body and obviously the defendant was the killer. The killer told his lawyer the full story before the case was about to get started, but he couldn't tell the court for obvious reasons of attorney/client privilege, but had tried to persuade the killer to plead guilty. He also had to fully disclose the defendant chances of beating the case and back then like I said that no body no proof/convict was a strong one back then, the lawyer said with a high success rate so the killer said fukk it take it to trial and just tell them where the girl is after I get off. We was in class like
Cool story bro, what was the second story & responses?
I don't know if I could have not told anyone about that. Would have lost my job, and everything. Guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.
so let me get this straight....if you get charged with a crime you don't want a lawyer.....you just want us to lock you up in jail and throw away the keys? I'm guessing not. You would want the most bad ass smily defense lawyer in town on your side.First of all, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, no matter how guilty you think they are. Unless you were there and saw the shyt go down, you don't really know what happened.
Second, if he's as guilty as you think he is, then it shouldn't matter what the defense attorneys do cause if the prosecution can do their job then a guy that guilty should go to jail. It seems to me that in cases when guilty guys go free, you should be mad at the prosecution rather than the defense.
Scustin Bieburr
Baby baybee baybee UUUGH
The reason a lawyer would defend a client goes beyond "its his job" or "he wants money" its because he wants to make the system better. If an attorney finds a loophole then the powers that be will close it up. If someone is found innocent who is clearly guilty because of shytty police work, then it will cause the police to step their game up. Defense lawyers improve the system by finding flaws within it. If the system is good enough then people who are innocent won't go to prison and people who are guilty will get what they deserve.
