Ethereal

I haven't really formed an educated opinion on Jessica's law so I will withhold it for now, but I do not understand this hatred for defense attorneys. My guess is you'll hate them until you need one to defend you. They are a necessary part of society and providing a fervent defense within the confines of the law is their job. We live in a common law system and the burden of proof rests on the prosecuting attorney, if someone gets off it's their fault, not the defense attorney's.

TacticalEvilDan

Um, wait. If they don't get caught, how do you know they struck again?

__________________
DURKA DURKA JIHAD

"No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent."
-- Abraham Lincoln

TacticalEvilDan

The difficulty with this mind-set is that you are mentally reclassifying someone else as something other than human, when in fact they are human beings.

This is not an uncommon practice, but since ultimately one of many measures of the health of any civilization is the grade of its criminals and the treatment they receive, it's intellectually dishonest.

TacticalEvilDan

The root of this hatred is actually fairly simple.

When the community decides that someone who is still (in thoery) presumed innocent is actually guilty as sin, the defense attorney who pulls out all the stops to defend his client is perceived as "trying to get him off."

In other words, the community tries and convicts someone in the court of public opinion, and then anybody who performs their duty to defend him in a court of law is written off as a scumbag.

Diogenes

As MLK, Jr. once counseled, a person should be judged by the content of his/her character rather than by external appearances. Those who lack the moral fiber to do what must be done to ensure the safety of their families will come up with all kinds of excuses for their craven behavior, but they are still the ones who are intellectually and morally dishonest.

Diogenes

Then again, the hatred is sometimes well founded. Think John Cooey. Think Joe Duncan. They are only two examples of monsters who should have been buried long ago, but who were released to kill again by the weakness of the system and the enthusiastic cooperation of lawyers who were more interested in gaming the system than in seeking justice.

TacticalEvilDan

This does not seem to address what I said:

. . . in any way. Could you maybe clarify how it does?

TacticalEvilDan

A defense attorney is obligated to everything in his or her power to defend their client by any legal means.

If you want to hate something, hate the system. The defense attorneys are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing.

Diogenes

You claimed that these scum were still human beings and entitled to humane treatment; I quoted King to urge you to look beyond the superficial resemblance to humans and examine their depraved character. This may help put you in the right frame of mind to do what needs doing, namely removing these creatures from the earth.

That makes my point. They are more interested in gaming the system than finding the truth. It may be legal, but it is hardly an honorable way to live and certainly nothing to be proud of.

TacticalEvilDan

The funny thing is, King never said that were to use the content of someone's character to decide whether or not someone was a "person" or "human." Your King reference does nothing to address my point that we can't write depraved individuals off as monsters or creatures.

They're still people, as much as we wish they were something else, and as such cannot be disowned by the human race at large.

You seem to be deliberately mis-reading what I'm saying. Defense attorneys are obligated to do everything possible within the law to defend their clients. They "game the system" no more (and I would submit significantly less) than the police and prosecutors.

What their interests are are irrelevent.