**Author's note: The following is a piece I wrote for another place and purpose altogether; however, given the question concerning war and PC-ness, I thought I would post it here. I have not altered it, but have starred out enough letters to mute the profanity somewhat. I know such language is not becoming, but if there's one thing I am, it's honest.******

Dear Mr./Ms. Criminal Defense Lawyer:

I can't help but wonder how you sleep at night. I don't mean literally, because I know all about how hang by your toes upside down in the dark or rest in a coffin; rather, I am wondering how whatever passes for the conscience that God gave every one of us fails to adequately torment you for the evil that you perpetuate on the world every day.

Since you obviously skipped or slept through Political Science 101 in college, I'll give you a small history lesson. When our justice system in America was instituted in the late 1700's, a couple of key things were written in. One, every accused person is innocent until proven guilty; and two, everyone has the right to a defense. These things were instituted to ensure that the poor didn't get screwed over and falsely accused by the rich and powerful, as had been the custom up until that point. The idea of giving everyone accused of a crime a qualified defense attorney was to ensure that the prosecution had all of their ducks in a row, and that the accused was truly guilty. The system worked better than any other in the world, and kept a great many people from being framed by their enemies. Overall, Salem witch trials notwithstanding, it worked pretty well.

However, you have betrayed the trust our Founding Fathers placed in you, and have perverted the system to meet your own ends, which usually seem to be fame and money.

No longer are you about ensuring the innocent are freed and the truly guilty punished. No longer are you striving to ensure the rights of the accused are guarded. No longer are you truly pursuing justice.

Now, you use every trick and loophole you can find to get the guilty off the hook entirely. How many times have you KNOWN that the person before you was guilty as sin, yet exploited the system to get them off entirely? I've heard you bragging about it as I quietly served you your uppity lawyer drinks. I've heard you while I quietly ate my dinner at the booth behind you.

All I can say is that the next time you free a known murderer, rapist, or drug dealer, I hope their next victim is one of YOUR family members, or even you. Then let's sit back and watch as you scream and whine for the same justice you've denied to other victims.

Criminal defense lawyers have gone from being defenders of the innocent and champions of Constitutional rights to being a cancer on the face of the planet. You make me want to puke.

A cop making $35,000 a year puts his on the line every single time he moves. He captures a criminal, and runs him through the system. A prosecuter for the DA making $50,000 a year busts his nuts to ensure that the case he presents is solid as a rock, despite being threatened and intimidated by the criminal friends and family of the accused. A scumbag defense attorney making $125,000 a year sits in the comfort and safety of a plush office and finds the smallest ambiguity and exploits it to get the criminal off, despite knowing he is guilty as hell.

Then, you sit around in your little martini bars and express disdain and disgust for the fact that vigilante justice is on the rise, and you just don't understand why.

You are now part of the problem, undoing the fine work of police officers and DA's everywhere. You are responsible for setting free on the streets the vilest creatures to ever walk the earth.

You don't know d**k about "justice."

You are a blight on society, and if you happen to be a male, you are not a man. A man fights evil, not ignores it. A man will sacrifice to see good triumph, not cash in while rubbing everything good and true into a pile of manure.

Yes, Lady Justice does indeed have the scales of justice in her left hand. However, you have ignored the fact that she also carries a sword in her right.

If you are too greedy or spineless or unethical to be the sword, then don't you dare have the gall to be surprised when I am the sword.

Wow, what an ignorant letter.

Oh OK.

You smear all lawyers for the actions of a few. What happens when you are charged with an offense? Who will you turn to?

Your rant sounds like immature ramblings of someone who's feelings were hurt.

Disclaimer: my wife is a lawyer though she rarely does criminal law.

Here's the funny part: in the other thread you warned others that you might post this letter which the easily offended may not want to read. Looks like you were the easily offended one. :)

**Author's note: The following is a piece I wrote for another place and purpose altogether; however, given the question concerning war and PC-ness, I thought I would post it here. I have not altered it, but have starred out enough letters to mute the profanity somewhat. I know such language is not becoming, but if there's one thing I am, it's honest.******

Dear Mr./Ms. Criminal Defense Lawyer:

I can't help but wonder how you sleep at night. I don't mean literally, because I know all about how hang by your toes upside down in the dark or rest in a coffin; rather, I am wondering how whatever passes for the conscience that God gave each and every one of us fails to adequately torment you for the evil that you perpetuate on the world each and every day.

Since you obviously skipped or slept through Political Science 101 in college, I'll give you a small history lesson. When our justice system in America was instituted in the late 1700's, a couple of key things were written in. One, every accused person is innocent until proven guilty; and two, everyone has the right to a defense. These things were instituted to ensure that the poor didn't get screwed over and falsely accused by the rich and powerful, as had been the custom up until that point. The idea of giving everyone accused of a crime a qualified defense attorney was to ensure that the prosecution had all of their ducks in a row, and that the accused was truly guilty. The system worked better than any other in the world, and kept a great many people from being framed by their enemies. Overall, Salem witch trials notwithstanding, it worked pretty well.

However, you have betrayed the trust our Founding Fathers placed in you, and have perverted the system to meet your own ends, which usually seem to be fame and money.

No longer are you about ensuring the innocent are freed and the truly guilty punished. No longer are you striving to ensure the rights of the accused are guarded. No longer are you truly pursuing justice.

Now, you use every trick and loophole you can find to get the guilty off the hook entirely. How many times have you KNOWN that the person before you was guilty as sin, yet exploited the system to get them off entirely? I've heard you bragging about it as I quietly served you your uppity lawyer drinks. I've heard you while I quietly ate my dinner at the booth behind you.

All I can say is that the next time you free a known murderer, rapist, or drug dealer, I hope their next victim is one of YOUR family members, or even you. Then let's sit back and watch as you scream and whine for the same justice you've denied to other victims.

Criminal defense lawyers have gone from being defenders of the innocent and champions of Constitutional rights to being a cancer on the face of the planet. You make me want to puke.

A cop making $35,000 a year puts his on the line every single time he moves. He captures a criminal, and runs him through the system. A prosecuter for the DA making $50,000 a year busts his nuts to ensure that the case he presents is solid as a rock, despite being threatened and intimidated by the criminal friends and family of the accused. A scumbag defense attorney making $125,000 a year sits in the comfort and safety of a plush office and finds the smallest ambiguity and exploits it to get the criminal off, despite knowing he is guilty as hell.

Then, you sit around in your little martini bars and express disdain and disgust for the fact that vigilante justice is on the rise, and you just don't understand why.

You are now part of the problem, undoing the fine work of police officers and DA's everywhere. You are responsible for setting free on the streets the vilest creatures to ever walk the earth.

You don't know d**k about "justice."

You are a blight on society, and if you happen to be a male, you are not a man. A man fights evil, not ignores it. A man will sacrifice to see good triumph, not cash in while rubbing everything good and true into a pile of manure.

Yes, Lady Justice does indeed have the scales of justice in her left hand. However, you have ignored the fact that she also carries a sword in her right.

If you are too greedy or spineless or unethical to be the sword, then don't you dare have the gall to be surprised when I am the sword.


Well, I don't trust lawyers, but that is my opinion, as for this dumb letter you have here, you time would be better spent work the change the legal system, rather than trying to pi&& off the attorney, you may have to face one of them in the future.


As, for me I work on showing them how they have fail the system that they have sworn a oath to preserve, not by name calling, but by facts. And by my rights under the constitution.

THAT'S MY OPINION!

Benjamin Franklin said "… it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

I understand your anger there buddy and I'm sure there are more than enough cases to justify it. You know as well as I do a defense lawyer's job is to zealously and competently defend his client. However, they must do so ethically and everyone involved must know their roles to see that justice is served. I don't see that justice is served by exploiting every loophole to get the guilty off the hook, but what do you do?

DK

Jeffrey Lichtman was the lawyer for mob boss John Gotti Jr. Gotti's goons first beat the hell out of Curtis Sliwa of Guardian Angels fame with baseball bats. Then they tried to murder him in a taxi cab. He took numerous bullets but survived .The media described the Gotti verdict as an "unbelievable courtroom upset" and Lichtman's work as "brilliant."

But Gotti got off due to Lichtman's efforts. When asked about his role ,he doesn't look at it the same way you do . He said his role was to make sure that the prosecution was on it's game . Bizarre . He knows as well as everyone that Gotti Jr . Ordered the hits. His defense was the unbelievable claim that Gotti had been a mob boss but had retired from the Gambino family before the hit attempts. Lichtman openly wept with joy .

He was President of the NY Trial Lawyers . His big concern a couple of years ago was in opposition to tort reform... limiting jury awards in civil suits... thus limiting his potential pay day. As you can tell ,it's not about justice for people like him or John Edwards ;it's all about the money.

As you can tell ,it's not about justice

Bingo.

Are you willing to assume that everyone who is arrested is guilty of a crime? If that were true, we would need neither prosecutors nor defense attorneys. Besides, even those who are guilty deserve an aggressive defense to make sure that police and prosecutors prove their case within the constraints of the rules of evidence and the rights conferred by the Constitution. If courts allowed convictions that trample on those rights to stand, such rights would have no meaning and no ability to protect the innocent from the abuse of police power by the state.

Hello DK:

Our justice system was designed to work when two lawyers fight it out to the best of their ability in the courtroom. I think it works pretty good that way. Apparently, you don't like one side. S'cool. I don't like the other side. I think prosectors are just as slimy as you think criminal lawyers are.

excon

Speaking of Constitutional rights, yesterday's decision by the fourth circuit court of appeals has several comments on the subject that are relevant to this discussion, it seems to me:


"Put simply, the Constitution does not allow the President to order the military to seize civilians residing within the United States and detain them indefinitely without criminal process, and this is so even if he calls them 'enemy combatants.'...

"To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution -- and the country. For a court to uphold a claim to such extraordinary power would do more than render lifeless the Suspension Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the rights to criminal process in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments; it would effectively undermine all of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. It is that power -- were a court to recognize it -- that could lead all our laws 'to go unexecuted, and the government itself to go to pieces.' We refuse to recognize a claim to power that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic."

Here's a link to the complete decision (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/dissent_al-marri_vs_wright_pdf_11.pdf) in case anyone's interested.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think most folks missed my point. Some people here know me, and so they know that I was given (or developed) a sense of humor that is exceedingly dry, sarcastic, and often has quite a bitter edge to it. Be that as it may...

The point is, I believe that our justice system has some growing problems. It ain't dead yet, but if the country at large doesn't wake up to some degree, it'll be terminal soon enough.

There is a percentage of criminal defense attorneys out there (what percentage it is depends on who you talk to) who care more about legal and illegal than they do about right and wrong. There once was a time when the two almost overlapped. Now, the two barely even nod to one another. THAT'S the point I'm making. Hey, my own lawyer has come in handy on a couple of occasions, even though he doesn't specialize in the kind of law we're talking about. I was in the right the whole time, but I needed someone with the initials "J.D." after their name to say it, for some reason. Apparently, the letters which follow my own name were not good enough, even though I have more sets of them than he does.

I believe that we're heading down a road whose name is not "Justice For All Street," rather, it's changed into "How Much Justice Can You Afford Boulevard." I've been witnesses for cases where it was whispered that if the defendant had more money, he could have hired ol' so-and-so, who was in good with Judge Doofus AND the DA's office, and things would've gone better, and so on and so on. THAT'S the system I have a problem with.

Maybe I should work harder on self-expression with unknown audiences...

Sorry if I pissed anyone off.

Some people here know me, and so they know that I was given (or developed) a sense of humor that is exceedingly dry, sarcastic, and often has quite a bitter edge to it.

That and your genuine honesty is what we love about you, Dennis.

I'm sure Ex is happy that one of those slimy prosecutors (http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ/MGArticle/WSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351597703) could be getting his due soon... I know I am. Now if we could just do something about Al Sharpton.

I think maybe you should pop in My Cousin Vinny to see how the justice system is supposed to work :D

"How Much Justice Can You Afford Boulevard."

As a general rule - Isn't this already the case?

I'm not a lawyer and have limited experience in dealing with them, but it seems to make logical sense that a court appointed or legal aid lawyer would not have the same time and resources to devote to a case as a private lawyer and their firm.

DK

Lawyers are bad enough . But what chance do we have when black robed oligarchs with life time appointments reign from on high; and we have brought into this bs that they are final arbiters ? I'm referring to the latest 4th Circus Court's al-Marri decision .

The undisputed facts [not even contested in the appeal]:

Al-Marri was closely associated with al-Qaeda and trained with that organization at a terrorist camp. In 2001, he met with bin Laden and volunteered for "martyr duty." Bin Laden ordered him to the U.S. (where he had once been a student). He entered on September 10, 2001 for the purpose of operating as a "sleeper agent" to facilitate terrorist activity. His mission also involved figuring out how to disrupt our financial system through computer hacking and obtaining information about poisonous chemicals. His efforts were funded by a known terrorist financier and he communicated with known terrorists by phone and email.

If al-Marri had been dispatched here for these purposes by a country with which we were at war, there is no dispute that he would be an enemy combatant and, as such, could be held without trial. If he had once fought against the U.S. on a formal battlefield, say in Afghanistan, he could also have been detained here when he came to pursue his assigned acts of terrorism. But because neither of these conditions was satisfied, two out of the three judges who heard the case voted in al-Marri's favor.

Under the President's inherent war powers as Commander in Chief ,and by Congressional authorization to use all necessary force against those nations and organizations that authorized, committed, or aided in the 9-ll attacks the al-Marri detention was justified and lawful . But ,evidently the 4th Circus Court now thinks that besides the expanded role the courts have assumed in the role of inventor of rights,that they can also reign as Commander in Chief.

Tom,

How does all that have any relevance to a childish rant about all criminal defense lawyers?

DK wrote about his pet peeve with the judicial system . I added mine. I was considering doing a separate thread with it but time is short today .

Ah I see.

Have a good one.

,evidently the 4th Circus Court now thinks that besides the expanded role the courts have assumed in the role of inventor of rights,that they can also reign as Commander in Chief.Hello again, tom:

Yeah, it's true, that here in the United States of America, the president can't pick someone off OUR streets, declare them an enemy combatant and throw them in the brig forever. He just can't. It's UNAMERICAN to do so.

The court is not the Commander in Chief, but the Commander in Chief has no business doing police work.

excon

Hello again, tom:

Yeah, it's true, that here in the United States of America, the president can't pick someone off OUR streets, declare them an enemy combatant and throw them in the brig forever. He just can't. It's UNAMERICAN to do so.

The court is not the Commander in Chief, but the Commander in Chief has no business doing police work.

excon


If that person is an enemy combattant the President is in his authority . As I mentioned the fact that he was an agent of al-Qaeda on a specific mission assigned by bin-Laden has not been disputed by him or anyone else. You call it police work . I say that al-Qaeda is as much an enemy of the United States as any other nation that had declared war on us .They have declared war on the US and if al-Qaeda was Germany in 1943 this case would not have even been considered .

On June 13,1942, 4 agents were landed from U-584 on Amagansett, Long Island, New York; and on June 17, 1942, 4 agents from U-202 were landed on Ponte Vedra Beach, south of Jacksonville, Florida. Their purpose was to perform acts of sabotage . They were captured .A subsequent military trial of the 8 captured agents resulted in 6 death sentences, one life imprisonment and one 30-year sentence. They were not given access to civilian courts ,judicial review ,discovery ,or any other rights Americans have built into the judicial system.

More on the German case cited

On July 2, 1942 President and Commander in Chief Roosevelt appointed a Military Commission and directed it to try the alleged spies. The President declared :

all persons who are subjects, citizens, or residents of any nation at war with the United States or who give obedience to or act under the direction of any such nation, and who during time of war enter or attempt to enter the United States ... through coastal or boundary defenses, and are charged with committing or attempting or preparing to commit sabotage, espionage, hostile or warlike acts, or violations of the law of war, shall be subject to the law of war and to the jurisdiction of military tribunals.

While the tribunals were ongoing the Supreme Court heard the case . On July 31, the Court held:
1.) That the charges preferred against petitioners on which they are being tried by military commission appointed by order ot the President of July 2, 1942, allege an offense or offenses which the president is authorized to order tried before a military commission.
2.) That the military commission was lawfully constituted.
3.) That petitioners are held in lawful custody for trial before the military commission, and have not shown cause for being discharged for writs of habeas corpus.

The motions for leave to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus were denied.

Chief Justice Harlan Stone subsequently wrote an opinion in which he stressed the fact that the petitioners were agents of a country which had declared war against the United States, and that throughout American history, spies were tried by military commissions beginning with Major John André, Adjutant-General to the British Army, who had crossed enemy lines in disguise to consort with General Benedict Arnold. He was tried as a spy by a ìBoard of General Officersî appointed by General George Washington and was hanged on October 2, 1780.
Justice Stone wrote:
By a long course of practical administrative construction by its military authorities, our Government has likewise recognized that those who during time of war pass surreptitiously from enemy territory into our own, discarding their uniforms upon entry, for the commission of hostile acts involving destruction of life or property, have the status of unlawful combatants punishable as such by military commission...

Lawyers are bad enough . But what chance do we have when black robed oligarchs with life time appointments reign from on high; and we have brought into this bs that they are final arbiters ?
....

Under the President's inherent war powers as Commander in Chief ,and by Congressional authorization to use all necessary force against those nations and organizations that authorized, committed, or aided in the 9-ll attacks the al-Marri detention was justified and lawful . But ,evidently the 4th Circus Court now thinks that besides the expanded role the courts have assumed in the role of inventor of rights,that they can also reign as Commander in Chief.
So you want to get rid of the entire judicial system (and the Constitution) and make the President the sole and final arbiter? Man, you are one scary dude. I sure hope no one who thinks like you ever gets to be president. Oh, wait. Somebody who thinks like you is the president. Doh!

Dennis,

While I agree with most of your original post, I have to draw the line at the part where you say that you hope that the attorney or his family becomes a victim of a crime. I don't wish that on anyone. Barring that, however, I think your post was right on target.

The fact is that many defense attorneys care more about their win/loss ratio and how it effects their ability to charge their clients than whether justice has been done in a specific case. And yes, it bothers me. But what is the alternative? Every criminal has the right to competent defense. Every defense attorney has the right to choose how much he charges his clients and his win/loss record is a determining factor in how much he can charge. These are both basic pillars of our democratic/capitalist system... the right to a defense in court and the right of a businessman to operate his business in a free-market economy and charge what he wishes by being better than anyone else at providing his service. You can't eliminate these pillars without irrevocably damaging our system.

To paraphrase Churchill, our justice system is the worst in the world... except for all the others.

Elliot

The fact is that many defense attorneys care more about their win/loss ratio and how it affects their ability to charge their clients than whether justice has been done in a specific case. Hello again, El and Dennis:

You're absolutely right. Defense attorneys keep score - and they should! The better their score, the more they can charge the next schlub that comes along. That's Americana - that's good old capitalism.

But, please don't tell me that prosecutors don't keep score, also. The better their score, the higher up they move in their job. That too, is Americana and capitalism at work.

However, you mistakenly think that lawyers (and apparently only DEFENSE lawyers) should be concerned with justice. Excuse me? Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors give a hoot about that - nor should they!

The justice system works, not because it depends on lawyers to have a sense of justice. You and I know they don't. It works, because it depends upon a lawyers need to make a buck. It works, because two adversaries try to kick each others a$$'s in thousands of courtrooms across this great country every day, with nary a one thinking about justice.

So, if the justice system doesn't require its lawyers (prosecutors and defense lawyers alike) to have a sense of justice, why do you? And why do you just pick one side to excoriate?

excon

So, if the justice system doesn't require its lawyers (prosecutors and defense lawyers alike) to have a sense of justice, why do you? And why do you just pick one side to excoriate?

excon

To the first: It's because SOMEONE has to. If the judges and the lawyers have lost their sense of justice--being the arbiters of it, and all--then what should we do? Throw in the towel and say, "To hell with it, I guess that part of America is dead?" To me, they're just like the majority of nitwits that manage to get elected, and re-elected, and re-elected, and re-elected to their offices. They have no understanding of the people at all. Remember that whole line about "of the people, by the people, for the people?" If you have lost all touch with "the people," is it working anymore? I think that we have managed in the last 50 years or so to effectively reverse almost everything the Founding Fathers did. They escaped and fought a war against an elite ruling class. We've voluntarily elected and kept one. The current state of legal affairs is a SYMPTOM of that much deeper, much more subtle cancer that will be our undoing as a nation unless people wake up and participate.

As to the other: I have my problems with DA's and prosecutors, too. But I picked on defense lawyers (1) because it's easier and more fun; and (2) because I think they're doing more of the damage, although not by much.

One of my best friends is a lawyer, and a pretty good one. HE sees the problems quite clearly.

Why can't anyone else?

But, please don't tell me that prosecutors don't keep score, also. The better their score, the higher up they move in their job. That too, is Americana and capitalism at work.

Sure they do. But a prosecutor's personal income is not dependent on his record. He's a government employee, and his pay scale is determined by the government pay scale. So yes, he keeps score, but more as a matter of personal or professional pride than as a case of trying to increase their salaries.


However, you mistakenly think that lawyers (and apparently only DEFENSE lawyers) should be concerned with justice. Excuse me? Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither defense attorneys nor prosecutors give a hoot about that - nor should they!

The justice system works, not because it depends on lawyers to have a sense of justice. You and I know they don't. It works because it depends on a lawyers need to make a buck. It works, because two adversaries try to kick each others a$$'s in thousands of courtrooms across this great country every day, and not one of them is thinking about justice.

I agree that this is the way it is. But I don't agree that this is the way it SHOULD be. The fate of an individual's case, whether civil or criminal, should not depend on who has the better attorney, but rather on the facts of the case... the truth. If a guy is guilty of the crime, he should pay for that crime, regardless of whether the defense attorney is better at his job than the prosecutor. If a guy is due millions from a corporation for damages done to him, he should get it regardless of whether the attornies had a good day at court or not. Naturally, that isn't the way it works. The system isn't perfect. It might work better if prosecutors were also self-employed rather than government employees and therefore had to be better at their jobs than the competition in order to get ahead. Then both sides would be working on an even keel. But as long as prosecutors are overworked and underpaid, they just aren't going to be able to give the job the same level of effort and the same level of skill as the defense does. And the cost is justice. As I said, our system is better than any other in the world. But it is still flawed.


So, if the justice system doesn't require its lawyers (prosecutors and defense lawyers alike) to have a sense of justice, why do you? And why do you just pick one side to excoriate?

Because, as I explained, only one side's "score keeping" results directly in changes in their income. Because the system gives an unfair advantage to the defense. And because the system results in criminals going free for crimes they obviously committed.

The OJ case is a perfect example... a prosecution that was way out of its league against the best defense attornies in the world. The defense attornies were able to dedicate 100% of their time to this one case, where the prosecutors had a large caseload. The defense attornies were able to spend millions of dollars to buy the best expert testimony money can buy. The prosecutors have limited budgets. The defense attornies knew that OJ was guilty as sin, just as everyone else in the world did. But they got him off anyway. Why? Not because they thought it was just, but because doing so improved their name recognition and got them a whole new list of clients, thus increasing their income. There was no justice in the OJ case, and the OJ "dream team" was able to get OJ off for murder... all to line their own pockets.

That's not to say that the prosecution and the cops didn't screw up royally in the OJ case. Furman was an idiot, and the prosecutors failed to do decent damage-control top mitigate Furman's idiocy. But the bottom line is that the defense got OJ off despite his guilt and they did it not because it was right, but because it was PROFITABLE.

Elliot

It's because SOMEONE has to. If the judges and the lawyers have lost their sense of justice--being the arbiters of itHello again, Dennis:

Nobody has to do anything, because nothing is broken. The justice system is working just fine for the very reasons I outlined.

You misspoke, above, and the distinction is monumental. Judges and lawyers are not arbiters of JUSTICE; they are the arbiters of the LAW. If they arbitrate the law, and do it within the rules, justice happens. Read that again.

Does justice happen in every instance?? No, of course not. Does it produce justice overall?? Absolutely!

Yes, there are dishonest people within the system who violate the rules and have no ethics. We throw 'em out when we find 'em - disbar 'em when necessary.

But justice has nothing to do with good guys, bad guys, shysters or bleeding hearts. It has to do with the framework I described. The founders did it right. Look, I hate government. The justice system, however, is the only one of the three left that is doing what it was designed to do.

Now, if you want to change the laws...

excon

In my next life, I hope I have the opportunity to become a criminal justice lawyer or a public defender. The whole point is to shape up the justice system by finding the chinks. This is necessary and proper so laws can be improved and changed to make fewer loopholes for the real criminals to sneak through.

And don't forget--not everyone who is accused of a crime is guilty. Those people need someone on their side too.

The whole point is to shape up the justice system by finding the chinks. This is necessary and proper so laws can be improved and changed to make fewer loopholes for the real criminals to sneak through.


But what happens when the chinks aren't fixed and the defense attornies continue to use them... and abuse them... to get criminals off? What happens when the system that is supposed to corect the chinks is instead used to WIDEN the chinks?

Elliot

Nobody has to do anything, because nothing is broken. The justice system is working just fine for the very reasons I outlined.

Do my eyes deceive me? Is this the same guy who argued valiantly for legalization of marajuana because the justice system was broken with regard to marajuana prosecutions? Is this the same guy who argued that the criminal justice system is broken, so we have to protest against an unfair system by breaking laws, particularly drug laws? Are you truly arguing that the system is working just fine?

Elliot

But a prosecutor's personal income is not dependant on his record. He's a government employee, and his pay scale is determined by the government pay scale. So yes, he keeps score, but more as a matter of personal or professional pride than as a case of trying to increase their salaries. Hello again, Elliot:

Dude! I couldn’t get passed this first mumbo jumbo of yours. Do you think if Nifong loses his fight to keep his license that it will affect his income?? Do you think being District Attorney pays more than being an AD? Do you think Governor pay is pretty good? Do you think people get those jobs because their “score” is BAD? I don’t.

Are you also saying that bad prosecutors get promoted even though they’re bad?? If that’s so, then you’re right. It is broken. But, hopefully, even in government bureaucracy’s some dufus’s are weeded out.


The fate of an individual's case, whether civil or criminal, should not depend on who has the better attorney, but rather on the facts of the case... the truth, I don’t disagree with you. However, we’re talking about two different things. Good thing you have me to keep you on track.

You’re talking about individual justice, and I’m talking about just plain ole justice – not what happens to Joe Blow – but what happens in America.


And the cost of justice…. is still flawed.True. And, I hate that Mecerdes Benz’s cost so much. I don’t like that justice isn’t free. But, I don’t think everybody should get a free lawyer every time they go to court. Do you, old conservative one?


The OJ case is a perfect example... Yup. Justice didn’t happen there. That doesn’t mean that justice doesn’t happen most of the time all over our great country, or do you really think it doesn’t?

excon

Is this the same guy who argued that the criminal justice system is broken, so we have to protest against an unfair system by breaking laws, particularly drug laws? Are you truly arguing that the system is working just fine?ElliotHello again, El:

You've learned how to bob and weave very well. A Karl Rove trick no doubt. But you right wingers change the words in the middle to suit you...

But, like I said, good thing you have me around to keep you on the straight and narrow. You should know that my usage of the language is quite precise. You should attempt it. Communication really happens if you do. If you don't, we wind up talking AT each other.

Simply put, we have three branches of government. One makes the laws (bad and unfair. I don't like 'em and I'll protest 'em). One executes the law (bad and unfair. I don't like 'em and I'll protest 'em till my dying day). The third adjudicates the law, and they're doing what they're supposed to do with the laws they have to work with.

Try to stay focused.

excon

But what happens when the chinks aren't fixed and the defense attornies continue to use them... and abuse them... Hello again, El:

What you call chinks, some people call the Constitution.

excon

Do you think if Nifong loses his fight to keep his license that it will affect his income??

Nifong isn't going to lose his license because he lost a case. Nifong is going to lose his license because he broke the law and the rules of the court system. Not a good example.


Do you think being District Attorney pays more than being an AD? Do you think Governor pay is pretty good? Do you think people get those jobs because their “score” is BAD? I don’t. Are you also saying that bad prosecutors get promoted even though they’re bad?? If that’s so, then you’re right. It is broken. But, hopefully, even in government bureaucracy’s some dufus’s are weeded out.

Unfortunately, the system is broken. Nifong got promoted even though he was KNOWN for being a rogue prosecutor and breaking rules of the court. And yes, ADAs and DAs move up in the system even though they are inept or refuse to do their jobs. Robert Morgenthau has stated publicly that he will NEVER seek the death penalty for any criminal, even though NY law calls for the death penalty in some cases. THAT is a DA who moved up through the system despite refusing to do his job. And thee are more than a few people in the DA's offices around the country that are there simply because they couldn't find a job in the private sector. You know it and I know it.


I don’t disagree with you. However, we’re talking about two different things. Good thing you have me to keep you on track.

You’re talking about individual justice, and I’m talking about just plain ole justice – not what happens to Joe Blow – but what happens in America.

I don't think that the two can be sepparated. What happens to an individual affects all of America. Our system is based on PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES. That is the purpose of the Constitution.


True. And, I hate that Mecerdes Benz’s cost so much. I don’t like that justice isn’t free. But, I don’t think everybody should get a free lawyer every time they go to court. Do you, old conservative one?

No, I don't. In fact, I hate the whole Miranda Rights thing. If it were up to me, I'd reverse the whole SC ruling on Miranda. I think it created an terrible loophole that is badly abused by defense attorneys to get criminals off regardless of their guilt.


Yup. Justice didn’t happen there. That doesn’t mean that justice doesn’t happen most of the time all over our great country, or do you really think it doesn’t?

Sure does. If there wasn't justice in most cases, our democratic system would not have survived this long. However, the fact that there is justice in most cases doesn't mean that I shouldn't criticize the system when it DOESN'T occur with the intent of improving the system. The system IS abused by criminals and defense attorneys... and yes, it is abused DAILY. You've been through the legal system, excon. Are you telling me that there aren't many criminals walking the streets today because their attorney 'worked' the system? You know that there are. And if I see that injustice, why shouldn't I say something about it and try to make it better?

Elliot

I also see a lot of innocent people incarcerated. Didn't somebody famous say that it's better to have 10 guilty men going free than it is to have 1 innocent man imprisoned? I think so, and I'd be happy with that ratio.

Perhaps... if only 10 guilty men were going free. The problem is that thousands of guilty men are going free, and innocents are STILL ending up in prison. The thousands of guilty going free haven't helped the innocents from being jailed, and they just make the streets more unsafe for the rest of us.

If the ratio you stated were the reality, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But it'snot... its thousands that are going free, not 10.

If the ratio you stated were the reality, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. But it'snot... its thousands that are going free, not 10.Hello again, El.

Did you hear that from Rush Limprod?? Bwa, ha ha ha. You can't win this argement by making up numbers and then washing your hands.

excon

You can't win this argement by making up numbers and then washing your hands.


I don't have to make up numbers, excon. There are tens of thousands of guilty criminals runnign free who got off because some defense attorney took advantage of a loophole in the law. You know it, I know it, and the general public knows it. You can't gloss over that travesty by making fun of Rush Limbaugh and ignoring the argument.

Do you disagree with the fact that there are tens of thousands of guilty criminals out loose on the streets, not just "10"? Or is it that you just don't see that as a travesty?

And I am not the one 'washing my hands' of the issue, you are. I am advocating for a change in the system that puts criminals behind bars where they belong. YOU are the one washing your hands of the problem by saying there is no problem.

Elliot

Hello again, El:

You, being who you are, think there are many more guilty people on the streets than should be, as a direct result of the problem as you see it. The truth is, there's probably much less.

Me, being who I am, think there are many more innocent people in jail than should be, as a direct result of the problem as I see it. The truth is, there's probably much less.

I don't expect, however, that my reasonableness will overcome your obstinance.

excon