3 ms·

That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited

That's ridiculous. I never said "limit both sides to a budget of $10." I said same, or same-ish. Eliminating the massive disparity in justice that unlimited money can buy you is not going to "destroy civilization", and I don't have much respect for people who have to use hyperbolic threats of catastrophe to try and scare people away from a point.

marcoperaza 11y ago
I'm only taking your thinking to its logical conclusion. Lots of things about our society aren't fair, but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off. What's wrong with letting people pay for a better defense? How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? Your argument is rooted in envy, not in an attempt to make anyone better off. All you propose is to make some people worse off so that the system can meet your criteria of fairness.
- knodi123 11y ago
  > but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off Lots of ideas look ridiculous if you take them to ridiculous extremes. I'd feel silly if I had suggested a contitutional amendment requiring absolutely everything in the world to be absolutely fair in every way. Boy, I'd have egg on my face then. It's easy to mock a straw man for looking silly, but it says a lot more about the one doing the mocking. > How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? That's idiotic. In a contest between two people, one person having an unlimited budget absolutely makes a big difference. And you know this, because that was the point of your second sentence. > Your argument is rooted in envy Grow up. As someone who is actually pretty well off, and who has never been to court, I'm pretty confident in saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about. A desire to help the downtrodden doesn't mean I'm green with envy. You're just insulting a caricature you've drawn in your own mind with no relation to reality.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Your original argument was that lawyers on both sides of a criminal prosecution should be public employees. One side is already always a public employee, the prosecution. That's what I'm referring to here. The fact that one person can afford a better defense in one case doesn't do anything to hurt the defense of some guy that can't in another.
wanderer2323 11y ago
Lawyer A is the best Lawyer in the country. He is forced to be a "salaried employee of the state". Who do you think 'gets assigned' to his representation list - a wealthy person or a poor person? Your solution works if all lawyers are the same OR if the whole system is clean of corruption. First is impossible, second is impossible. If you start thinking "we can make assignments fair/automated/etc." you already lost because the argument just switches to "who manages the control of assignment's fairness". Who watches the watchmen? The answer is: no one. The world is not fair. Deal with it.
- knodi123 11y ago
  > The world is not fair. Deal with it. I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair." Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.
  - wanderer2323 11y ago
    Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to force fairness. Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant. Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are mediocre mouthpieces? Easy: as soon as Lawyer A distinguished himself in a court a few times, nobody picked him as a part of the pair at the first stage anymore (out of fear of loosing him at the second stage of selection).
    - knodi123 11y ago
      > Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it". There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated. I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone agrees Citizen's United is an insult to democracy. And we have the exact same problem in place in our courts, and that's an insult to justice. Unlimited money buys results. That's fucked up, and you'll never convince me otherwise.

marcoperaza 11y ago

I'm only taking your thinking to its logical conclusion. Lots of things about our society aren't fair, but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off. What's wrong with letting people pay for a better defense? How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? Your argument is rooted in envy, not in an attempt to make anyone better off. All you propose is to make some people worse off so that the system can meet your criteria of fairness.

knodi123 11y ago
> but trying to make them all fair would just make us all worse off Lots of ideas look ridiculous if you take them to ridiculous extremes. I'd feel silly if I had suggested a contitutional amendment requiring absolutely everything in the world to be absolutely fair in every way. Boy, I'd have egg on my face then. It's easy to mock a straw man for looking silly, but it says a lot more about the one doing the mocking. > How does what I spend on my lawyer affect the services that a public defender provides for someone else? That's idiotic. In a contest between two people, one person having an unlimited budget absolutely makes a big difference. And you know this, because that was the point of your second sentence. > Your argument is rooted in envy Grow up. As someone who is actually pretty well off, and who has never been to court, I'm pretty confident in saying you don't know what the hell you're talking about. A desire to help the downtrodden doesn't mean I'm green with envy. You're just insulting a caricature you've drawn in your own mind with no relation to reality.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Your original argument was that lawyers on both sides of a criminal prosecution should be public employees. One side is already always a public employee, the prosecution. That's what I'm referring to here. The fact that one person can afford a better defense in one case doesn't do anything to hurt the defense of some guy that can't in another.

wanderer2323 11y ago

Lawyer A is the best Lawyer in the country. He is forced to be a "salaried employee of the state". Who do you think 'gets assigned' to his representation list - a wealthy person or a poor person? Your solution works if all lawyers are the same OR if the whole system is clean of corruption. First is impossible, second is impossible. If you start thinking "we can make assignments fair/automated/etc." you already lost because the argument just switches to "who manages the control of assignment's fairness". Who watches the watchmen? The answer is: no one. The world is not fair. Deal with it.

knodi123 11y ago
> The world is not fair. Deal with it. I do deal with it. I have a pretty fulfilling life. But I'll never accept someone saying "The world is not fair. Don't ever try to make it more fair." Here's a thought- Let one party pick a pair of legal representatives, and let the other party pick who is represented by whom.
- wanderer2323 11y ago
  Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". But stop trying to force fairness. Side A picks a pair. Side B picks the representation. Both lawyers are equally mediocre. Side A's lawyer gets the materials analysis/arguments/speeches written by "Lawyer A", best in the country, now retired and working as the consultant. Do you know why "Layer A" is working as a consultant (for $$$) and the representation lawyers are mediocre mouthpieces? Easy: as soon as Lawyer A distinguished himself in a court a few times, nobody picked him as a part of the pair at the first stage anymore (out of fear of loosing him at the second stage of selection).
  - knodi123 11y ago
    > Nobody says "stop trying to make it more fair". Pardon me for misinterpreting "deal with it". There are rules governing ethics for legal professionals. Those who break the rules risk their careers. This seems like a problem that could be addressed, or at least drastically mitigated. I'm not saying that a solution rattled off the cuff in a forum on HN is what should be enshrined in law. But there's a reason everyone agrees Citizen's United is an insult to democracy. And we have the exact same problem in place in our courts, and that's an insult to justice. Unlimited money buys results. That's fucked up, and you'll never convince me otherwise.