[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[kindj]

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?

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

It's because SOMEONE has to. If the judges and the lawyers have lost their sense of justice--being the arbiters of it

Hello 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

[Wondergirl]

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.

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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

[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?Elliot

Hello 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

[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

[ETWolverine]

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

[ETWolverine]

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.

[excon]

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

[ETWolverine]

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

[excon]

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