Log in to check your private messages
Education
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove View previous topic :: View next topic  
 PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:51 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Hogy
Master
Master

Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 907
Location: Nar Shaddaa

You represent a person and give him/her a legal advice, not only defend. If your client confesses a crime to you, plus all the evidence are against him/her, you can (must in some cases) advise your client to plea guilty. If your client is a first time offender and shows remorse for his actions he/she may get a better sentence than he/she would if you defend him/her as "not guilty".

As for the debate part. I had a professor, that loved to have debates and he devided our class in two groups and assigned us an opinion kinda like yours did. The point of those debates was to develope our debate skills. The truth in these debates was irelevant as some of the topics were pretty radical such as 'Do people need to breathe.'


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:52 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6870
Location: Sailing into the unknown

Cerrinea wrote:
Reepicheep wrote:
I guess, but a lawyer defending a guilty person is just as idiotic as the debate. Call me an idealist.


Everyone has the right to a defense and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm talking about lawyers defending people they know are guilty. Again, in many cases, a lawyer's job is not to find out what actually happened, but to make their client win the case.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 2:40 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Cerrinea
Master
Master

Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1491

Reep, I'm not a lawyer but lawyers are governed by laws and the ethics of whatever organization that oversees them. Because they duty bound to give their client the best defense possible and having knowledge that their client is guilty of the charge would interfere with that duty, I highly doubt if most lawyers even ask their clients if they're guilty. I know in some jurisdictions lawyers must report knowledge of their client's guilt to the court.

It's just not as black and white as you're seeing it because by law everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; not on the accused to prove they are innocent.
_________________
Roqoo Depot co-founder.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 3:32 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6870
Location: Sailing into the unknown

I'm not saying I have a better solution than our current law system, I'm just lamenting about injustice in general. If you know someone is guilty of a crime, I don't care what job you have, it's wrong to lie in their favour for money. If I was falsely accused of murder and I couldn't afford a good lawyer, while the prosecution was a billionaire and could hire the best lawyer in the country, too bad for me. Again, I'm not saying that there's a better solution, I just wish more people would have common sense.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:13 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  comanderbly
Master
Master

Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Location: Denver

Reepicheep wrote:
Cerrinea wrote:
Reepicheep wrote:
I guess, but a lawyer defending a guilty person is just as idiotic as the debate. Call me an idealist.


Everyone has the right to a defense and everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I'm talking about lawyers defending people they know are guilty. Again, in many cases, a lawyer's job is not to find out what actually happened, but to make their client win the case.


Its to provide their client with the best defense possible - that does not the same as winning the case. The same burden falls on the prosecution - if they defendant murdered someone but the evidence is manslaughter at best they may go with manslaughter rather than risk losing the case.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 4:25 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  comanderbly
Master
Master

Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Location: Denver

Reepicheep wrote:
I'm not saying I have a better solution than our current law system, I'm just lamenting about injustice in general. If you know someone is guilty of a crime, I don't care what job you have, it's wrong to lie in their favour for money. If I was falsely accused of murder and I couldn't afford a good lawyer, while the prosecution was a billionaire and could hire the best lawyer in the country, too bad for me. Again, I'm not saying that there's a better solution, I just wish more people would have common sense.


Lawyers are not allowed to lie outright in a trial - their job is to make a case and present evidence that is relevant. The legal system relies on both side making their strongest/best case. Its also not solely about money - the most lucrative case is the one that goes on the longest after all.

If you were in a situation where the prosecution had billions you would be getting sued - not prosecuted for a crime which is handled by county/state/federal courts not private attorneys and law firms. The government may have more money but typically the law firms have more in most situations.

If the defense was obligated to report anyone who said they were guilty - then what? Not everyone that says they did something really did it, some people are mentally ill and may admit to something they did not do. If they are guilty and the defense knows it the defense may take the approach to get the client the best help and best chance at moving forward - life in prison instead of the death penalty for example. Its about what is best for their client.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:51 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6870
Location: Sailing into the unknown



That is all. Wink


No, not really.
commanderbly wrote:
Lawyers are not allowed to lie outright in a trial

Only if they get caught. There's also the matter of holding back information. If a lawyer has information that would make his client look bad, he can easily zip his lip.

commanderbly wrote:
If you were in a situation where the prosecution had billions you would be getting sued

Okay, fair enough. Forget the billionaire. Let's say my prosecutor is just significantly richer than I am. You get the idea.

commanderbly wrote:
If the defense was obligated to report anyone who said they were guilty - then what? Not everyone that says they did something really did it, some people are mentally ill and may admit to something they did not do.

If they're mentally ill, tests can show it. A confession is hardly a throw-away thing. If it was why would courts bother with asking whether the accused pleads guilty or innocent? At worst, a confession is significant evidence against the accused.

*whispers* We're getting off topic.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 5:29 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Cerrinea
Master
Master

Joined: 09 Jun 2009
Posts: 1491

Idk what the setup is in Canada, but in the U.S. criminal prosecution is brought by the state (or federal) government; not an individual. So it wouldn't matter how personally wealthy the prosecutor is because he doesn't use his money to prosecute.

In a civil case the client pays; not the lawyers.

Also lying in court is called perjury and the courts take it very seriously. You get caught, you go to jail for it.

Quote:
If they're mentally ill, tests can show it.


The medical definition and legal standard are entirely different. The court basically doesn't care if the accused is mentally ill as long as they're competent enough to stand trial. Mentally ill people can still be mentally ill and competent enough to stand trial. If they understand the charges against them and can assist in their own defense, they're competent enough to stand trial. I have a relative who's diagnosed with a mental disease. Would they be considered competent enough to stand trial? Absolutely.

Quote:
a confession is significant evidence against the accused.


A confession by itself is nothing without evidence to back it up. Someone can (and has) confessed, but pleads innocent and the state still has the burden of proving the case against the accused. There's no prosecutor in the country who going to take a case to trial based solely on a confession.

If they've plead guilty, there's no trial.
_________________
Roqoo Depot co-founder.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 6:26 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Crash Override
Master
Master

Joined: 22 Dec 2010
Posts: 1962

The legal system is substantially different than is portrayed in popular culture, and sadly, IMO, there are issues with the American legal system that I think deserve mention that are brushed aside for the popular depiction of lawyers and so forth when people are taking shots at it.

What I find interesting in this particular discussion is that I think overzealous prosecutors are more the issue in the adversarial system than defense attorneys. It is innocent until proven guilty, yet the base assumption in this discussion seems to be that the accused is already guilty by default. Prosecutors have a vested interest in finding the truth -- not winning -- and yet the adversarial system has created a culture of prosecutors desiring to win even if the defendant is innocent.


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 10:22 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  comanderbly
Master
Master

Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 745
Location: Denver

Reepicheep wrote:


That is all. Wink


No, not really.
commanderbly wrote:
Lawyers are not allowed to lie outright in a trial

Only if they get caught. There's also the matter of holding back information. If a lawyer has information that would make his client look bad, he can easily zip his lip.

commanderbly wrote:
If you were in a situation where the prosecution had billions you would be getting sued

Okay, fair enough. Forget the billionaire. Let's say my prosecutor is just significantly richer than I am. You get the idea.

commanderbly wrote:
If the defense was obligated to report anyone who said they were guilty - then what? Not everyone that says they did something really did it, some people are mentally ill and may admit to something they did not do.

If they're mentally ill, tests can show it. A confession is hardly a throw-away thing. If it was why would courts bother with asking whether the accused pleads guilty or innocent? At worst, a confession is significant evidence against the accused.

*whispers* We're getting off topic.


I guess you're right you cannot force a lawyer to tell truth and abide by the system, but that kind of thing seems obvious. In any profession its up to the individual to maintain to be honest. My point was that for lawyers to lie is serious offense. The lawyers I know working in defense do in fact play by the rules because if you get caught your career is over.

The defense is obligated to report information when someone else is in danger, but not in the case of a confession. Tests may prove someone is mentally ill, but tests that determine a patient's perception of reality and other aspects of their state of mind are not so cut and dry.

Since we are kinda off topic Wink, I just want say that I feel the system (by far not perfect) would be too complicated by further rules and restrictions on attorney - client privilege. Whether guilty or innocent the defense should be focused on serving the best interest of the client.


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 3:11 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6870
Location: Sailing into the unknown

commanderbly wrote:
In any profession its up to the individual to maintain to be honest.

And this goes back to my original education-related point. My original gripe wasn't so much frustration at the legal system for being broken, as it was the education system for teaching us to win debates by any means necessary rather than searching for truth.

Unless anyone wants to say anything for or against my opinion on the education system, I'm backing out of this discussion. I feel I'm defending an opinion I don't even hold. I came here to rail against the education system, not the legal system. And, to be honest, I think Canada's legal system is pretty good, all things considered. Bly had an excellent point. It isn't about the system so much as the individual and I feel by having debates like the one in my Law class, the education system is not training good individuals. At least on this point.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:47 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2241
Location: New York, USA

Reepicheep wrote:

commanderbly wrote:
Lawyers are not allowed to lie outright in a trial

Only if they get caught. There's also the matter of holding back information. If a lawyer has information that would make his client look bad, he can easily zip his lip.


A lawyer can keep their mouth shut but I'm pretty sure they aren't legally allowed to withhold evidence. I'm pretty sure that would come under "obstruction of justice" which would likely end any lawyer's career.

Back on topic: regarding "truth" there is seldom a single "truth" (murders and other crimes being an example of an exception). That results in blurring the line in a debate between finding the truth (you also won) and merely having the opposition run out of ideas without ever conceding their side as invalid (you won without discovering the truth). As Obi-Wan said "many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 7:59 pm Reply with quote  
Message
  Reepicheep
Master
Master

Joined: 05 Feb 2008
Posts: 6870
Location: Sailing into the unknown

It's true that an individuals point of view might obscure the truth in their sight, but that doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. There are three sides to every argument: two biased subjective views and the truth.
_________________

Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

 PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:56 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Salaris Vorn
Moderator
Moderator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008
Posts: 2241
Location: New York, USA

Reepicheep wrote:
It's true that an individuals point of view might obscure the truth in their sight, but that doesn't mean that truth doesn't exist. There are three sides to every argument: two biased subjective views and the truth.


I never intend to imply that the truth doesn't exist, rather that there can be several truths (ie more than one correct point of view). Take politics for example (and assume you are debating a rational, non-extremist issue). Just because you may not agree that one side's opinion or solution to a problem doesn't mean that the other side holds a point of view that is any less truthful than your own.

Another example is debates over religion. Take any given religion and you'll likely produce many different interpretations over the meaning of a specific text or oral tradition. It is entirely possible that only one side is correct, both sides misunderstood something (and therefore both are incorrect), both are only half true and the real truth is somewhere in between, or that both are correct and it is our limited human comprehension that requires something to be only A or B that prevents us from realizing both can be correct. One could extend this to debates between religions as well but to be fair none of us will know the answer (or "truth") conclusively until we die.

This is not to say that single truths don't exist (for example stealing is wrong, single truth end of story). Merely that it is possible in many cases for multiple truths to exist.
_________________


View user's profile Send private message

 PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 6:07 am Reply with quote  
Message
  Life Is The Path
Master
Master

Joined: 10 Sep 2010
Posts: 3921
Location: In a galaxy far, far - No, I'm behind you! Got you! Boo!

I'd argue that seeking out a course of action isn't a seeking out of the truth, but rather an attempt to find a solution that's best. That's not necessarily the truth. Saying 'this solution is best' could be the truth, or not (when compared to one thing or another), and a political debate over that statement would be the seeking out of the truth, but finding out which is the best solution isn't itself finding out the truth.

Also, I feel that the words 'fact' and 'truth' are not universally interchangeable. As my girl once said, people's opinions are their truth, but it may not be factual. And, when I brought up this subject with her just now, she came up with this, and I'm in agreement:

All wants are needs, but not all needs are wants. (This from her social studies class, which she altered into the below)
All facts are truths, but not all truths are facts.
Truth is, I guess, a subset of fact.
_________________
I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.


View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic   Reply to topic    The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 3 of 4
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Display posts from previous:

  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Jedi Knights 2 by Scott Stubblefield