3 ms·

> I see them as highly educated people who excel in relativism and twist ethics and law to achieve narrow goals without regard to principles. That's how I see

> I see them as highly educated people who excel in relativism and twist ethics and law to achieve narrow goals without regard to principles. That's how I see most lawyers.

coldtea 6y ago
That's great for lawyers, it's part of their job description. Lawyers are not about morals and truth, they're about defending their client, guilty or not. It's bad for prosecutors, though...
- kiba 6y ago
  They should be defending their client?
  - eloff 6y ago
    Exactly. How can you have a fair trial if the defence lawyer won't give his best? Just look at the sham justice served if a person can't afford counsel and has to use a public defender. In the US being rich or poor can make the difference in whether or not a person goes to jail for a crime. I understand people get upset when they help a very likely guilty person get off (OJ Simpson anyone? see the point about being rich above.) But defence lawyers have an important job, irrespective of who they're representing or what they're alleged to have done.
    - kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
      The justice is sham there because the other side mostly brought forth lawyers. If both sides were being defended by vaguely similar public defenders, the result might be different. This only shows that using lawyers is a classic game theory problem. Both people using lawyers prolly makes the system worse off overall, but neither side can defect in isolation. Think of divorce lawyers for example so that you don't feel this is about criminals on one side and innocent people on the other. In a divorce settlement, neither side is usually the criminal, and yet they spent thousands of dollars lawyering up in a bizarre game of mutually assured destruction. cf. The Marriage Story.
      - Nasrudith 6y ago
        The main issue with going without trial lawyers is that even if they were somehow banned for both sides in all cases it would bias it just towards those who would be good pro se (relatively speaking as it is always a disadvantage) .
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      Really defense attorneys are a prerequisite to actually convict the guilty and have it mean anything. An unopposed trial could convict a ham sandwich and thus can and should be thrown out on appeal.

> I see them as highly educated people who excel in relativism and twist ethics and law to achieve narrow goals without regard to principles. That's how I see most lawyers.

coldtea 6y ago

That's great for lawyers, it's part of their job description. Lawyers are not about morals and truth, they're about defending their client, guilty or not. It's bad for prosecutors, though...

kiba 6y ago
They should be defending their client?
- eloff 6y ago
  Exactly. How can you have a fair trial if the defence lawyer won't give his best? Just look at the sham justice served if a person can't afford counsel and has to use a public defender. In the US being rich or poor can make the difference in whether or not a person goes to jail for a crime. I understand people get upset when they help a very likely guilty person get off (OJ Simpson anyone? see the point about being rich above.) But defence lawyers have an important job, irrespective of who they're representing or what they're alleged to have done.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
    The justice is sham there because the other side mostly brought forth lawyers. If both sides were being defended by vaguely similar public defenders, the result might be different. This only shows that using lawyers is a classic game theory problem. Both people using lawyers prolly makes the system worse off overall, but neither side can defect in isolation. Think of divorce lawyers for example so that you don't feel this is about criminals on one side and innocent people on the other. In a divorce settlement, neither side is usually the criminal, and yet they spent thousands of dollars lawyering up in a bizarre game of mutually assured destruction. cf. The Marriage Story.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      The main issue with going without trial lawyers is that even if they were somehow banned for both sides in all cases it would bias it just towards those who would be good pro se (relatively speaking as it is always a disadvantage) .
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    Really defense attorneys are a prerequisite to actually convict the guilty and have it mean anything. An unopposed trial could convict a ham sandwich and thus can and should be thrown out on appeal.