:naughtyI just think it needs to be consistent. Money shouldn't play a role, even though it so obviously did to anyone honest enough to admit it.
I just think it needs to be consistent. Money shouldn't play a role, even though it so obviously did to anyone honest enough to admit it.
It's the judicial system that tolerates such nonsense defenses...
The judicial system is usually just flat out wrong.
And people wonder why politicians are so damn off base and loony - it's because most are lawyers and have a completely different mindset than the majority of us.
Lawyers lost their sense of humanity the second they understood law because having any sense of morals only interferes with their jobs, and their jobs is to defend or convict and they have absolutely no problem lying to do that or even doing it...
Lawyers have such a scrambled philosophy...
Think about it - how the hell could anyone try to get someone off that is obviously and admittedly guilty of killing someone off for it??
It makes no sense as a person - yet these people do it and they're proud that they do it. It's disgusting.
:doh
No it wasn't.
It was during sentencing. That is not defense.
It wasn't even presented as mitigation.
It was presented to suggest he needed rehabilitation instead of prison.
That is not in defense of the act he committed.
So stop with your absurdities.
Everyone deserves defense, even the guilty. On base lawyers aren't bad and are in fact necessary, but the level we've taken it has indeed scewed significantly the system in general. Justice is to be blind, not bribed.
Really, so you would be content representing Dahmer (or insert any nut here:___________).
It takes a lack of morals to be a lawyer weather you're defending a killer or prosecuting an innocent man "just to win."
It seems the defendants/perps are nothing more than foodder for these lawyers egos and record, because it's not about the case or the defendant - it's about them winning and their record.
Not all lawyers are bad, the innocence project does good work...
Everyone has the right to proper defense, even Dahmer.
She gave him a sentence that was already within her repertoire.and that the judge is a lawyer himself - and he was the one that sentenced the kid..
No Nick. That is not a defense.That is a defense.
She gave him a sentence that was already within her repertoire.
In addition.
She was following the law.[...]
The law almost assumes they can be rehabilitated," said John Cruezot, a retired state district judge. "Not in every instance, but in most instances, I think it's appropriate for a judge to start at that standpoint."
Cruezot said the criticism against Tarrant County Judge Jean Boyd over her sentencing of 16-year-old Couch is unfair.
[...]
But, Cruezot said the judge was following the law.
[...]
Sentence given to teen in deadly drunk driving crash spurs backlash | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth
No Nick. That is not a defense.
They were not defending his actions.
Nor were they trying to mitigate what he had done.
They are not making excuses for what he did or trying to justify why he did it.
It is not a defense.
It is an explanation to the court to suggest why treatment is a better option for him than prison.
And as she is already on the record as being willing to sentence a non-affluent 14 year old who committed a more intentional and deliberate act to harm someone, to the same type of sentence, it more than suggests that this sentence was not influenced by such a presentation, by wealth or race.
:doh Said the one doing so.Quit trying to jibe with your own logic.
Plea? :dohThe judge got presented with a plea (whatever it was) and it was rejected and the 10-year probation sentence was handed down.
:doh Said the one doing so.
Plea? :doh
Gawd. You are just so intent of using words that are not applicable at this point in the proceedings.
He plead guilty.
Three days of testimony happened after that to determine what sentence he would be given.
You are suggesting a plea agreement, which is not what has been reported.
Yes, she rejected the Prosecutors request of twenty years.
This isn't Illinois is it?
Which also means your personal experience matters not.
And if you knew of what you speak, then you would know what I said was true.
So you are just showing you don't.
Everyone has the right to proper defense, even Dahmer.
I'm not arguing due process - I'm arguing lawyers morals and why they're generally flawed people...
Trying to get a serial killer off is pretty immoral...
I agree, those accused should have a defense, but trying to get wacko's free is just insane.
I couldn't defend Dahmer, but plenty wanted to.
I don't think it's insane, I think it's a cornerstone of the Republic. Everyone deserves competent defense, even the guilty. It's only right and just to provide the best defense for all accused.
I agree with you too, but some people are guilty and some are innocent, the lack of morals involved in prosecuting or defending these people is seriously mind boggling...
As a libertarian I support your comment 100% but seriously, I cant take any legal position on this issue... Its all wrong!
And, the "State" (we the people) deserves a vigorous prosecution, which our friends in Texas are delivering.I don't think it's insane, I think it's a cornerstone of the Republic. Everyone deserves competent defense, even the guilty. It's only right and just to provide the best defense for all accused.
Tarrant County District Attorney Joe Shannon is making a final push to get the driver, 16-year-old Ethan Couch, locked up by asking a juvenile judge to convict the teen on two pending counts of intoxication assault, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
Read more: Texas prosecutors try again to get
And, the "State" (we the people) deserves a vigorous prosecution, which our friends in Texas are delivering.
Never said any differently. Just that it's immoral for a lawyer to take a dive if they think think their client is guilty.
Absolutely. It's a defense attorney's job to ignore guilt or innocence. However, a prosecutor must consider the fact that a defendant can be innocent and has to hand over exculpating evidence when he/she gets a hold of it.
A defense attorney can bury evidence which hangs his client, but he/she cannot put a witness on the stand knowing they will commit perjury. This can make it difficult because a client who has confessed guilt to his lawyer cannot then testify that he is innocent.
Apparently that would be you.You clearly know nothing about criminal law...
:doh:lamo:dohThe judge ignored the the agreed deal (obviously) and instituted his/her own (and judges can do that).
Yeah, an unscrupulous Prosecutor.Also, the prosecution is going after him again -
The best part is you talking this nonsense.The best part is that when he's charged with different offenses relating to the crime his OJ Simpson-ish legal team will concoct a completely different defense...
This kid is going to prison...
iLOL A different statute? iLOLI told you one time that statutes were similar across the board...
If you have a difference/statute I would love to see it..
This isn't Illinois is it?
Which also means your personal experience matters not.
And if you knew of what you speak, then you would know what I said was true.
So you are just showing you don't.
I don't think it's insane, I think it's a cornerstone of the Republic. Everyone deserves competent defense, even the guilty. It's only right and just to provide the best defense for all accused.
Ever had a vanilla malt at Sonic and driven down the road? You were over the kegal minimum, if you did. What if you had killed someone? Think you would want to do some hard time?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?