• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Clinton Refuses To Apologize For Laughing About Rape Victim

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
wrong

anyone with integrity who believes in the system of innocent until proven guilty should be willing to defend an accused to the best of their ability

if not, they should be disbarred

Not only is your opinion uninformed by facts, but it also shows a bizarre misunderstanding of what the presumption of innocence entails. The notion that lawyers are ordinarily obligated by the rules of professional responsibility to defend persons who have been charged with crimes and should be disbarred for not doing so, no matter how convinced they are that those persons are guilty, is juvenile nonsense.

Only in very rare circumstances, usually when for some reason no other lawyer can be found to represent a criminal defendant, can a court require a lawyer to represent him. The Timothy McVeigh case provides an example of that. Otherwise, if a lawyer believes a person has committed a crime, particularly one he finds repugnant, he has no legal or ethical obligation whatever to agree to defend that person.

Vincent Bugliosi, who led the prosecution of the "Manson family" defendants, made some scathing comments about the very sort of conduct you seem to think is so noble and wondrous. He said the evidence against these people was so overwhelming that he would have been embarrassed--his word--to offer them his services, had be been a criminal defense lawyer. He noted with disgust how many lawyers he had seen rush to try to get that job, not because they believed these depraved murderers were poor innocents who had been railroaded, but simply because they saw a chance to gain publicity and make a lot of money.
 
Last edited:

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,704
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Not only is your opinion uninformed by facts, but it also shows a bizarre misunderstanding of what the presumption of innocence entails. The notion that lawyers are ordinarily obligated by the rules of professional responsibility to defend persons who have been charged with crimes and should be disbarred for not doing so, no matter how convinced they are that those persons are guilty, is juvenile nonsense.

Only in very rare circumstances, usually when for some reason no other lawyer can be found to represent a criminal defendant, can a court require a lawyer to represent him. The Timothy McVeigh case provides an example of that. Otherwise, if a lawyer believes a person has committed a crime, particularly one he finds repugnant, he has no legal or ethical obligation whatever to agree to defend that person.

Vincent Bugliosi, who led the prosecution of the "Manson family" defendants, made some scathing comments about the very sort of conduct you seem to think is so noble and wondrous. He said the evidence against these people was so overwhelming that he would have been embarrassed--his word--to offer them his services, had be been a criminal defense lawyer. He noted with disgust how many lawyers he had seen rush to try to get that job, not because they believed these depraved murderers were poor innocents who had been railroaded, but simply because they saw a chance to gain publicity and make a lot of money.

not surprising that you have totally and completed misconstrued my post

the justice system presumes innocence until proven guilty

IF that is so, and IF all are entitled to a defense and IF all lawyers have already decided the client is guilty then there is no system of justice

it would seem in your world and many others there is no system of justice anyway...you guys think you know it all even other people's thoughts and guilt or innocence

which is precisely the point I was making
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,637
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Clinton spoke in clinical, legal terms while explaining her defense of the rapist, who Clinton helped to avoid a lengthy prison term by relying on a technicality relating to the chain of evidence of his blood-soaked underwear, as well as arguing at the time that the 12-year-old victim may have exaggerated or encouraged the attack.

Read more: Hillary Clinton Refuses Apologize Laughing Rape Victim Child | The Daily Caller



Clinton mocked and laughed at a 12 year old child and claimed she was just fantasizing about older men. Does that sound like an advocate for women and children? The 12 year old girl was raped into a coma and Hillary attacked her character and credibility in court.

You might want to point out the way she spoke of her husband's playmates, when they had dared mention his behaviour.
 

Kiwimac

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
1,104
Reaction score
434
Location
Deepest, Darkest NZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal

Nope, not at all. Defending a client does not mean enabling that client's possible behaviour. All folk arrested are entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Moreover laughing about the behaviour of the prosecuting attorney does not equate to laughing about the victim and no amount of insistence on your part will make those the same.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,225
Reaction score
15,187
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What they didn't get wrong, however, was that she did indeed laugh at this case.

...
Yeah...she laughed at the prosecutors case...not the victim. Glad you could finally admit it.

After reading this thread...phew...I was wrong about you, too.
 

Moot

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
40,225
Reaction score
15,187
Location
Utah
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I never said she laughed at the victim. Point that out, or concede.

I know...you just said she laughed at the case..not the victim. I'm agreeing with you.
 

Kobie

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
48,281
Reaction score
25,273
Location
Western NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Nope.. I can here it in her own words while laughing about it

She was clearly laughing at the situation she was placed into, not AT THE VICTIM. Why must you incessantly lie?

Oh, I know. Because your claims hold no validity.
 
Top Bottom