• 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!

Why are so many politicains ex-lawyers?

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
...Because both professions specialise in lying and blindsiding.

Think about it. It doesn't matter much for the background of a defendant, or even the evidence, for a juryman when asked to decide on his guilt or innocence. The accused can look angelic or as evil as sin, but you're gonna get confused (and confused good) when both defence and prosecution battle hard with their PR skills to either demonise or romanticise the bloke in the dock.

Open-and-shut cases are mostly easy and straightforward but other more serious ones can be deep enough without m'learned friends' obscure legal technicalities, excuses for bad behaviour and logic-chopping to drag things even further into the goo. It's all about spin and winning, with justice coming lower down. That's why it's still a 'victory' for criminal scum to escape proper justice in the eyes of the smooth-tongued 'wiggies'.



Even with mass murderers or serial rapists, lawyers can't resist a bit of the old gloss, telling us they can't really help it or they're just a bit mad that's all. If the bloke defending Dennis Nilsen, and those like him, faced their own charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice when trying to warp the truth too hard, we may get more clarity in our courts.

Even though I swear by trial by jury, as it's the most open, democratic and fair method of judgment we can get, I still don't think many of us can be trusted to man a jury. Short cases anybody can do, but big cases are more likely to see juries replaced as they get bored or confused. Who can honestly say they can follow the contradicting stands of logic, unbroken in their concentration, as the two liars in wigs do what they will with the police evidence? After all, all so often, it's not about what's right but about the law.

Judges are there to help and advise but they're the only ones apart from both defence and prosecution who are trained. I couldn't be a juryman. Knowing my cynicism (and those of many others who have sat on juries) I would probably ignore most of what the professionals say on the grounds of untrustworthiness and come to my own cobbled-together, horse-sense conclusions - especially as I'd have to sit on a jury and so would be more likely to be swayed by the others.


..But hey, the approach to the lawyers works well enough when they 'upgrade' to being politicians!
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- Open-and-shut cases are mostly easy and straightforward but other more serious ones can be deep enough without m'learned friends' obscure legal technicalities, excuses for bad behaviour and logic-chopping to drag things even further into the goo. It's all about spin and winning, with justice coming lower down. That's why it's still a 'victory' for criminal scum to escape proper justice in the eyes of the smooth-tongued 'wiggies'. --
Having sat in family courts as a "McKenzie Freind" for a few years now trying to help estranged fathers (and one or two mothers) regain contact with their kids - I can tell you the only real "open and shut" cases tend to be in so called family cases.

I'm not defending politicians or lawyers who prosecute or defend in criminal and civil cases but your accusations are way off the mark. Family cases are pretty much the only courts and examples where precedent sets nearly 95% of all cases. Too many fathers spend huge amounts in court and on lawyers trying to see their kids when I can nearly 95% predict how the final judgement will go. Too many family lawyers make far too large a living off the misery of ex servicemen / business men / ordinary law abiding fathers who suddenly find that they have to plead to see the kids they helped create.

I would personally prefer the openness of civil court, I'd put up with the wigs and all the things you seem to despise IF we could introduce juries, if we could introduce some of the openness and ability for the public to oversee what happens and exists in criminal court into family court.

There are lawyers and cases far worse than you could ever imagine RoP - and it's what is supposedly protecting children's rights and their access / contact with their estranged parents.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I may at least be extremely cynical of the back-and-forth theatre of prosecution and defence, but only because juries have to go to the bother to sort the wheat from the chaff. And on the upside it can be the making of good lawyers to disprove the **** and bull of the other side if said lawyer's on the side of truth for a while.

As I say, despite everything, trial by jury is typically fairer and at its best allows a greater degree of common sense to enter the proceedings. I'd much rather that than the EU's more corruptable corpus juris.
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I may at least be extremely cynical of the back-and-forth theatre of prosecution and defence, but only because juries have to go to the bother to sort the wheat from the chaff. And on the upside it can be the making of good lawyers to disprove the **** and bull of the other side if said lawyer's on the side of truth for a while.

As I say, despite everything, trial by jury is typically fairer and at its best allows a greater degree of common sense to enter the proceedings.
Seems you've moved positions - which is great to read RoP.

I know where you're coming from regarding lawyers and how many get into or go into politics but as you point out - trial by jury is an important part of the heritage of individual rights that have been hard won. It's not a perfect system as we both point out - some of the alternatives like the (almost) star chamber system of prejudgement that exists in Family law courts and even corpus juris which you remind me of are worse examples which actually reduce individual liberty and opportunity to make your own case.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I haven't moved positions as such, just elaborated on the first sentence of paragraph four of my opening post.

It'd be just the same with the political system - just because successive democratically elected governments fail, abuse and double-cross the electorate all the time, it would be no solution to dump democracy itself. Just take better care of what we've already got.
 
Top Bottom