4 ms·
It's ironic that you reference Nuremberg, because the Nuremberg trials actually make exactly the opposite point. > The future will never have to ask with misgi
by torstenvl 4y ago
It's ironic that you reference Nuremberg, because the Nuremberg trials actually make exactly the opposite point.
> The future will never have to ask with misgiving, what could the Nazis have said in their favor. History will show that whatever could be said, they were allowed to say. They have been given the kind of trial which they, in the days of their pomp and power, never gave to any man. But fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute to our strength. . . . The United States has no interest which would be advanced by the conviction of any defendant if we have not proved him guilty on at least one of the counts charged against him in the Indictment. Any result that the calm and critical judgment of posterity would pronounce unjust, would not be a victory for any of the countries associated in this prosecution.
You want to compare ensuring a fair trial to the Nazis "just following orders"? Okay. What is your alternative, then, other than unfair trials? How is that justice?
- karpierz 4y agoI'm not sure how you got "I think that lawyers should rig trials" from "I think lawyers should recognize injustice in the system and work to reform it instead of claiming that they have no responsibility for the way the system functions." Do you take issue with the latter?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 4y agoI never said anything about rigging trials, and you know I didn't. Ensuring a fair trial goes way beyond simply not rigging it. Hyperbole and dishonesty don't make for good discussion. If you want to learn more about the ethics of being a lawyer and the fundamental principles underlying the fair administration of justice, I encourage you to listen to the experts in that field rather than propagating snark.
- karpierz 4y agoDo you take issue with: "I think lawyers should recognize injustice in the system and work to reform it instead of claiming that they have no responsibility for the way the system functions?" It's a simple question.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- torstenvl 4y agoYes, I do take issue with it. It's a nonsensical platitude, spoken by someone who neither knows, nor is interested in knowing, the subject matter. If you want to be taken seriously, learn something about the systems you're trying to reform before telling other people how to do their jobs.
- karpierz 4y agoWell, if it brings you any solace, all I'm doing is echoing the thoughts of some of the lawyers I've had the good fortune to talk to. I'll be sure to let them know of their ignorance and disinterest in ethics, and that they should take some refresher classes. Otherwise, seems we've reached an impasse, so I'll just take my leave.