6 ms·

So basically the point is that it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense? To me this sounds close to saying that there is the law of the

So basically the point is that it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense? To me this sounds close to saying that there is the law of the common person - where you are sent to rot in jail if you break the rules, and the law of the people who are wealthy enough to pay for complicated defense strategies. I'm not trying to build a straw man here, just trying to figure out where the difference in our (moral?) thinking lies. Isn't it close to the idea that the state should provide a humane living standard for those who can't provide for themselves. Such as not starving, basic healthcare etc - but anything beyond that is something that every person has to earn themselves. This seems like something close to a moral conviction to liberal-minded people, sometimes. "If you can afford it, you deserve it." I'm wondering if it's the same thinking that guides you here. A basic "throw them in jail if they did it" law that doesn't allow for complicated cases, and a deluxe version that takes into account other things than "straightforward factual events", for those who can afford it? I'm not convinced, but maybe I'm just not getting your point.

lotharbot 11y ago
> "it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense?" More like, it doesn't apply for cases where your defense is "I totally did it, but I'm not guilty because..." in such a circumstance, you're essentially hoping to convince a judge or jury that your law-breaking was OK, which is significantly more difficult and requires significantly more research than if you merely needed to convince the jury that you hadn't broken the law.
- andrelaszlo 11y ago
  No my point is that "I did it" and "I broke the law" are two separate things. One thing is about my actions, and the other is about how my actions are supposed to be interpreted by the law. The law is complex, and the interpretation of it is a skill we pay people a lot for. For example. Let's say I confess to killing someone, but I claim it was self defense. I "totally did it", but the self-defense is a complication. Maybe my lawyer sucks, and maybe I killed this person in the wrong state and I'll get a lethal injection. Maybe I can afford a great lawyer and I'll get out of jail (although not for free...). If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right? Or would you say that I broke the law and got away with it? The way I see it, my actions may be clear, but the legality of them are in a kind of dual state which doesn't collapse into a "guilty" or "not guilty" until there is an actual verdict. And even this is an oversimplification, of course.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    > "If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right?" Right -- and that's written in the law. There are a number of similar laws which hold that X is illegal except in circumstance Y. I'm not aware of exceptions of that form in this particular case, though, which is what makes the defense complicated -- it's not "I did it but it's not illegal", it's "I did it, it's against the law, but don't convict me because the law was wrong for this reason" which is actually a pretty difficult defense.
rayiner 11y ago
The question is, how do you make the system more fair? One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and the way to do that is to reduce its complexity. But what does a less complex system look like? Consider that most of our criminal laws have a "mens rea" (i.e. mental state) requirement in addition to the "actus reus" (i.e. culpable conduct). Cases would be a lot cheaper to prosecute and defend without those mental state elements. It's very time consuming, and therefore expensive, to litigate the question of what someone was thinking when they took certain actions. Did Manning leak that information? Was that information classified? If so, she's guilty. No need to spend lots of time and money arguing about what she was thinking or what motivated her to leak the information. What you're talking about is a slightly different issue--who should bear the cost of allowing ordinary people to mount complicated and expensive legal defenses? That's outside the scope of what I'm talking about above.
- ddingus 11y ago
  We should. It could be us. At the very least, having a fund or pool of some sort might not be a bad idea, and it would not cost us much. Ordinary people sometimes require extraordinary legal defenses. Sometimes they deserve them too. We hear about the ones who didn't get what they deserve in the news. We do prosecute on intent, and we often make judgements on intent too. Spending that time and money to determine intent is warranted.
- knodi123 11y ago
  > One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and [one] way to do that is to reduce its complexity. You've made a good case against that solution. But I remain far from convinced that there's not another solution, like having the lawyers of both sides be salaried employees of the state.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    You want to make it fair by prohibiting people from paying for a better defense? So because some people can't afford private lawyers, an unfortunate state of affairs that public defenders exist to remedy, private lawyers should just be banned outright? The independent legal profession is a cornerstone of our free society. My lawyer shouldn't have to be on the payroll of the people trying to imprison me. Lawyers try to do a good job because it improves their reputation and wins them more clients. You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator.

lotharbot 11y ago

> "it doesn't apply for cases where you need a complicated defense?" More like, it doesn't apply for cases where your defense is "I totally did it, but I'm not guilty because..." in such a circumstance, you're essentially hoping to convince a judge or jury that your law-breaking was OK, which is significantly more difficult and requires significantly more research than if you merely needed to convince the jury that you hadn't broken the law.

andrelaszlo 11y ago
No my point is that "I did it" and "I broke the law" are two separate things. One thing is about my actions, and the other is about how my actions are supposed to be interpreted by the law. The law is complex, and the interpretation of it is a skill we pay people a lot for. For example. Let's say I confess to killing someone, but I claim it was self defense. I "totally did it", but the self-defense is a complication. Maybe my lawyer sucks, and maybe I killed this person in the wrong state and I'll get a lethal injection. Maybe I can afford a great lawyer and I'll get out of jail (although not for free...). If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right? Or would you say that I broke the law and got away with it? The way I see it, my actions may be clear, but the legality of them are in a kind of dual state which doesn't collapse into a "guilty" or "not guilty" until there is an actual verdict. And even this is an oversimplification, of course.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  > "If the court decides that I acted in self defense, I didn't break the law, right?" Right -- and that's written in the law. There are a number of similar laws which hold that X is illegal except in circumstance Y. I'm not aware of exceptions of that form in this particular case, though, which is what makes the defense complicated -- it's not "I did it but it's not illegal", it's "I did it, it's against the law, but don't convict me because the law was wrong for this reason" which is actually a pretty difficult defense.

rayiner 11y ago

The question is, how do you make the system more fair? One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and the way to do that is to reduce its complexity. But what does a less complex system look like? Consider that most of our criminal laws have a "mens rea" (i.e. mental state) requirement in addition to the "actus reus" (i.e. culpable conduct). Cases would be a lot cheaper to prosecute and defend without those mental state elements. It's very time consuming, and therefore expensive, to litigate the question of what someone was thinking when they took certain actions. Did Manning leak that information? Was that information classified? If so, she's guilty. No need to spend lots of time and money arguing about what she was thinking or what motivated her to leak the information. What you're talking about is a slightly different issue--who should bear the cost of allowing ordinary people to mount complicated and expensive legal defenses? That's outside the scope of what I'm talking about above.

ddingus 11y ago
We should. It could be us. At the very least, having a fund or pool of some sort might not be a bad idea, and it would not cost us much. Ordinary people sometimes require extraordinary legal defenses. Sometimes they deserve them too. We hear about the ones who didn't get what they deserve in the news. We do prosecute on intent, and we often make judgements on intent too. Spending that time and money to determine intent is warranted.
knodi123 11y ago
> One way to make it more fair is to make it cheaper, and [one] way to do that is to reduce its complexity. You've made a good case against that solution. But I remain far from convinced that there's not another solution, like having the lawyers of both sides be salaried employees of the state.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  You want to make it fair by prohibiting people from paying for a better defense? So because some people can't afford private lawyers, an unfortunate state of affairs that public defenders exist to remedy, private lawyers should just be banned outright? The independent legal profession is a cornerstone of our free society. My lawyer shouldn't have to be on the payroll of the people trying to imprison me. Lawyers try to do a good job because it improves their reputation and wins them more clients. You don't make society better by reducing the quality of everything to the lowest common denominator.