4 ms·

I think it's implied in this OP that the author did not see any meaning in his lawyer job, there's nothing "bigger than him" he's working for, just making a lot

I think it's implied in this OP that the author did not see any meaning in his lawyer job, there's nothing "bigger than him" he's working for, just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison. There's no "bigger" purpose in that. As a party clown/musician there is purpose - he can make kids happy, he knows that "something in his future is expected of him", his work is extremely meaningful to the kids, he catches glimpses of that (whether he actually understands that is hard to say, he'd have to be able to 100% become a child to see the child's point of view).

collyw 11y ago
"just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison". If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).
- angdis 11y ago
  It is perfectly fine to judge. Having been a juror in criminal cases involving repeat offenders and lived in cities with crime problems, I can tell you that actual criminals being found "not guilty" or guilty and given probation (nothing) is MORE common than justice being served. The system is comically far from perfect.
  - dghf 11y ago
    Can you tell us how you know that some people found not guilty really were guilty? Was it a case of the jury thinking that the accused was more likely guilty than not, but there was still reasonable doubt? Or did the accused admit to an act which many laypeople would consider a crime, but then got acquitted on a technicality? Or were you privy to information and insight denied to your fellow jurors?
    - frobozz 11y ago
      > repeat offenders ... actual criminals being found "not guilty" One does not have to be guilty of the crime for which one is being tried, to be a criminal. Regardless of the result, if a repeat offender is on trial, then there is a criminal in the dock. If said repeat offender is found not guilty, then, regardless of actual guilt of the offence in question, a criminal has been found "not guilty". However, it would be appropriate to take angdis to task on the claim that this is "MORE common than justice being served", as that would require one to chart the difference between actual guilt and verdict for a significant majority of trials. That would be very tricky information to come by.
      - dghf 11y ago
        If your interpretation of angdis' comment is correct, I'm even more at a loss. What is wrong with people being found not guilty of one offence even though they've previously been convicted of others? In what way is it an example of justice not being served?
        frobozz 11y ago
        angdis doesn't say that the correct acquittal of repeat offenders is not justice being served, just that the total number of acquittals of criminals is greater than the total number of times that justice is served. Justice is the sum of all correct results. (i.e. where the accused is guilty and found guilty, and where the accused is innocent and found not guilty) The number of Criminals found not guilty is the sum of all incorrect acquittals of all offenders (guilty but found not guilty), and correct acquittals of repeat offenders. Consider an example: Given 10 trials of repeat offenders, made up of 5 guilty and 5 innocent. If every trial ends with the correct result, then justice has been served 10 times, and 5 criminals have been found not guilty. However, If they are all found not guilty, then justice has been served 5 times, but 10 criminals have been found not guilty.
        dghf 11y ago
        In that case, and assuming (1) the correctness of angdis' contention that criminals are found not guilty more often than justice is served and (2) a conviction rate of at least two-thirds in the court system he/she is talking about (which is not a high bar), there are more wrongful convictions than correct ones.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  person committing a crime is a criminal, no matter if justice system finds him guilty (I mean come on, we all know similar cases). reciting some law textbooks seems a bit ridiculous in face of reality
  - collyw 11y ago
    Sure but in the absence of other evidence, only one person really knows the truth. How can you be sure that a person you think is criminal is actually one? If you have the evidence to know that, then you should be able to convict them.
  - gunsofbrixton 11y ago
    what is "reality"? the law is what makes someone a "criminal". the law is what determines if that person committed a crime. not "whatever saiya-jin seems to believe is reality", which is an awfully frightening idea given the nonsense you have been spouting.
- DanBC 11y ago
  Part of a lawyer's job is to reduce the sentence faced by people found guilty. That's not a bad thing.

collyw 11y ago

"just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison". If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).

angdis 11y ago
It is perfectly fine to judge. Having been a juror in criminal cases involving repeat offenders and lived in cities with crime problems, I can tell you that actual criminals being found "not guilty" or guilty and given probation (nothing) is MORE common than justice being served. The system is comically far from perfect.
- dghf 11y ago
  Can you tell us how you know that some people found not guilty really were guilty? Was it a case of the jury thinking that the accused was more likely guilty than not, but there was still reasonable doubt? Or did the accused admit to an act which many laypeople would consider a crime, but then got acquitted on a technicality? Or were you privy to information and insight denied to your fellow jurors?
  - frobozz 11y ago
    > repeat offenders ... actual criminals being found "not guilty" One does not have to be guilty of the crime for which one is being tried, to be a criminal. Regardless of the result, if a repeat offender is on trial, then there is a criminal in the dock. If said repeat offender is found not guilty, then, regardless of actual guilt of the offence in question, a criminal has been found "not guilty". However, it would be appropriate to take angdis to task on the claim that this is "MORE common than justice being served", as that would require one to chart the difference between actual guilt and verdict for a significant majority of trials. That would be very tricky information to come by.
    - dghf 11y ago
      If your interpretation of angdis' comment is correct, I'm even more at a loss. What is wrong with people being found not guilty of one offence even though they've previously been convicted of others? In what way is it an example of justice not being served?
      - frobozz 11y ago
        angdis doesn't say that the correct acquittal of repeat offenders is not justice being served, just that the total number of acquittals of criminals is greater than the total number of times that justice is served. Justice is the sum of all correct results. (i.e. where the accused is guilty and found guilty, and where the accused is innocent and found not guilty) The number of Criminals found not guilty is the sum of all incorrect acquittals of all offenders (guilty but found not guilty), and correct acquittals of repeat offenders. Consider an example: Given 10 trials of repeat offenders, made up of 5 guilty and 5 innocent. If every trial ends with the correct result, then justice has been served 10 times, and 5 criminals have been found not guilty. However, If they are all found not guilty, then justice has been served 5 times, but 10 criminals have been found not guilty.
        dghf 11y ago
        In that case, and assuming (1) the correctness of angdis' contention that criminals are found not guilty more often than justice is served and (2) a conviction rate of at least two-thirds in the court system he/she is talking about (which is not a high bar), there are more wrongful convictions than correct ones.
saiya-jin 11y ago
person committing a crime is a criminal, no matter if justice system finds him guilty (I mean come on, we all know similar cases). reciting some law textbooks seems a bit ridiculous in face of reality
- collyw 11y ago
  Sure but in the absence of other evidence, only one person really knows the truth. How can you be sure that a person you think is criminal is actually one? If you have the evidence to know that, then you should be able to convict them.
- gunsofbrixton 11y ago
  what is "reality"? the law is what makes someone a "criminal". the law is what determines if that person committed a crime. not "whatever saiya-jin seems to believe is reality", which is an awfully frightening idea given the nonsense you have been spouting.
DanBC 11y ago
Part of a lawyer's job is to reduce the sentence faced by people found guilty. That's not a bad thing.