4 ms·

what a dangerous precedent you are setting, PD friends acting as judge and jury. Laws change, and there are often subtleties to a law that make rash statements

by hnriot 14y ago

what a dangerous precedent you are setting, PD friends acting as judge and jury. Laws change, and there are often subtleties to a law that make rash statements made by some PD friend with likely no more than a GED about "clear guilt" absurd. Even the simplest of laws aren't clear when looked at in detail. This is why we have advocates with specific knowledge in these areas, and why judges hear briefs explaining the nuances of law, as it applies to a case. There just is no such thing as "clearly guilty"

rayiner 14y ago
> what a dangerous precedent you are setting, PD friends acting as judge and jury. Nobody is acting as judge and jury. PD's are charged with zealously representing their clients just like any other lawyer, and the ones I know are extremely committed to their jobs (many turned down six figure jobs in private practice to work for state government salaries and defend poor people). They fight hard for their clients, even the "clearly guilty" ones. But that doesn't mean they're not allowed to make observations about the nature of the world. > Laws change, and there are often subtleties to a law We're not talking about subtleties here. We're talking about people who rob a liquor store, have people see them do it, have video evidence of them doing it... That's the bread and butter of the criminal justice system. When you see edge cases in the news and rant about how broken the system is for not taking even more measures to protect the innocent, remember that the vast majority of people who go through the justice system really did do the crimes they're accused of committing, and that factual state of affairs influences how the system is structured. If a lot more of the people who come up before judges each day were innocent in fact, the system would be structured differently.
leephillips 14y ago
"PD friend with likely no more than a GED" PD here means "public defender": a lawyer. Did you perhaps think it meant "police dept"?
- tptacek 14y ago
  He clearly did think that.

by hnriot 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

> what a dangerous precedent you are setting, PD friends acting as judge and jury. Nobody is acting as judge and jury. PD's are charged with zealously representing their clients just like any other lawyer, and the ones I know are extremely committed to their jobs (many turned down six figure jobs in private practice to work for state government salaries and defend poor people). They fight hard for their clients, even the "clearly guilty" ones. But that doesn't mean they're not allowed to make observations about the nature of the world. > Laws change, and there are often subtleties to a law We're not talking about subtleties here. We're talking about people who rob a liquor store, have people see them do it, have video evidence of them doing it... That's the bread and butter of the criminal justice system. When you see edge cases in the news and rant about how broken the system is for not taking even more measures to protect the innocent, remember that the vast majority of people who go through the justice system really did do the crimes they're accused of committing, and that factual state of affairs influences how the system is structured. If a lot more of the people who come up before judges each day were innocent in fact, the system would be structured differently.

leephillips 14y ago

"PD friend with likely no more than a GED" PD here means "public defender": a lawyer. Did you perhaps think it meant "police dept"?

tptacek 14y ago
He clearly did think that.