They dominate state and federal government legislatures.
They are the judges.
They are the prosecutors.
They are the public defenders (generally doing that job as a step to a better job…likely prosecutor).
They are the members of the American Bar Association.
They are far-and-away the ones responsible for writing the laws and procedures of the court system.
If something like the death penalty is broken, as it clearly is, and is such a fundamental and extreme case of the miscarriage of justice, and the public does not want to pay for it then the lawyers of the US should pull the plug on it. DA’s do not HAVE to seek the death penalty. They could decide to go for life in prison if they wish. Governors, as was done in Illinois, could put a moratorium on implementing the death penalty till its issues are sorted out.
If the public complains explain they have a choice…pay for it or forget it.
But lawyers do not work to fix the system. Barring some few crusaders as a whole they barely try as evidenced by the almost total lack of meaningful reform on this.
This is why lawyers deserve scorn as a profession.
This is absolutely bullshit reasoning. The legal system in a democratic society is subject to the will of the people. If the people want a death penalty, it is not up to the legal system to deny it to them. As you note, there are lawyers who are trying to persuade the public to abandon the death penalty. You can’t ask more than that. And you can’t demand that they all be dedicated to this issue. There are many worthy causes.
The “will of the people” do not trump your constitutional rights thank Og.
As I noted DA’s could simply refuse to impose the death penalty. I am pretty sure it is not a mandated sentence anywhere in the US.
They (DAs) do it because they are politically motivated? The people want someone hung so damn tootin the DA will give them a hanging? You are ok with that? The public wanted American-Japanese interned in WWII so that made it ok? The people, once upon a time, wanted slavery so that made it ok? Nevermind the constitution…the people want it!
It is this evasiveness, this abdication of responsibility in an arena they are responsible for, that is bullshit.
Yes, you are engaged in absolute bullshit reasoning, I can only presume that it is of some amusement for you. No one has ever in this thread been arguing against the death penalty in all instances: People are arguing against it being applied to innocent people. Maybe you are in favor of the death penalty for innocent people, but no non-trolls are. If you have a citation to non-crazy people being for the death penalty regardless of innocence, then be my guest and cite it. Nobody in this thread is demanding that people (including the subgroups of people called lawyers and judges) dedicate themselves to ending the death penalty if they happen to support the death penalty. What I and presumably others in this thread have been talking about is that the legal profession has no claim to non-scumbag status when they do not police their own on many issues, including the death penalty, but not limited to that. You really are the trolliest person on this board. That is quite an accomplishment.
I think ivn1188 should add another characteristic to the OP’s analysis – the conversion of discussions of policy into personal attacks.
What I am saying is this: There is no way to have a death penalty and guarantee that no innocent person will be put to death. It is existentially impossible. It is not a “somewhat simple task” as you claim. Thus, people who want a death penalty will have to accept the statistical certainty that a certain number of innocent people are put to death. The sole way of ensuring that no innocent people are put to death is to eliminate the death penalty. Take that fact and see if it persuades the public to get rid of the death penalty, but don’t blame lawyers for having to carry on if that doesn’t happen.
Who here has suggested a bullet proof system that only ever convicts the truly guilty?
Of course no system will be infallible. Thing is the current system is profoundly dysfunctional. Again, and you have studiously avoided addressing this, Illinois had Roland Burris pushing a death penalty case despite strong evidence to the contrary. I keep harping on that but I am willing to bet it is not unique and has happened other places. Just something that was overt and Burris got called out for. It was so bad in this case that his own prosecutor resigned rather than pursue that case because it was so overwhelmingly a miscarriage of justice.
Additionally, the former governor of Illinois (a Republican no less so not known as a bleeding heart liberal) put a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois because so many people on death row were being shown as completely, provably, innocent of the crime they were convicted for.
I cited capital cases where the defense attorney slept (repeatedly) during the trial and yet it went forward just fine.
I took a class called “Death Penalty and Its Issues” while in college. Note I was a firm supporter of the death penalty walking in. After I was done I could not support it. NOT because I oppose the death penalty on principle (I am fine if the likes of John Wayne Gacy fry) but because the whole process is fucked and achieves no rational goals apart from the public wanting someone’s blood.
To appease our blood lust we seriously bend the constitution as has already been noted. We achieve no desirable goals as regards the purpose of punishments. And that all assumes we are sending people to death row who are guilty of the crime that got them there…which provably is not the case far too often.
Note the distinct lack of rich people on death row (yeah…sometimes rich people ala OJ do bad things). Note the disturbing trend of people on death row to later be found innocent. Note the willingness of those who prosecute these things to go forward despite good evidence that the person does not deserve it…it is in the prosecutor’s interest to see someone, anyone, hang.
You avoid all these issues and nitpick that we are on about a “perfect” system.
I am going on record here that I do not believe a “perfect” system exists that will never nab an innocent person.
I do however believe that the current system is profoundly dysfunctional. We have strayed to the death penalty here but back to the OP I think the system is dysfunctional across the board.
We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the WORLD! The US…a prosperous country with a democratic government. A year or so ago we now have 1 in 100 citizens imprisoned. Few third world countries with heinous governments beat that.
In my view that is a sign of something being wrong.
And of course, to the OP, this is just criminal law. I have not forgotten about all the rest which I believe, and have gone on about at length above, is likewise dysfunctional.
I have provided gobs of cites for the lot of this and can provide more. The “lawyers are good, the rest of you are misinformed assholes” have provided none and content yourselves with nitpicks.
Hope you got more. So far the OP’s rant has fallen flat.
Agreed. These guys remind me of the pro se fuckwits who can’t stay on point and veer off onto some tangent about all societal ills, then repeat themselves again and again. And again. And again. With line by line quoting.
I wouldn’t bother to respond to them, because all you’re going to get is more vague assertions and dumbass oversimplification, with zero actual evidence. (Though I am sure in 10 minutes there will be another 12 posts quoting this:
[example] This is exactly why our country is messed up! It’s ok for lawyers to be “reminded” because they can line their pockets with the scalps of unborn death row babies and my tax money![/example]
Short version: Whack-a-mole and The Second Stone and Polerius = Moron #1, with a touch of moron #2 and 3.
In my opinion, the real problem with society is people who have stupid, unthinking, overbroad, and completely unrealistic vews about groups of people. Way to go guys, you’re in the club with the KKK and Fred Phelps, and PETA.
By the way, this turd of a post you just laid is simply amazing. You are a complete jackass and, if you are a lawyer then you are precisely one of the people who give your entire profession a bad name.
You may be getting complaints about “lawyers” in your daily life, when it’s just you personally that people are disgusted with.
You seem to make a point of “actual evidence.” You are aware, of course, that nobody offers and admits evidence in the Pit. People offer citations to accounts and possibly statistical studies if they are available. As no scientific studies are available on “the scuminess of lawyers” all we are left with are individual data points, and our personal feelings built on our own experience. But if you’ve ever managed to have “actual evidence” on the SDMB, my hat is off to you. Moron.
You almost rise to the level of making a point by almost asking why it is simply, but then, you ruin it and convert your opponent’s argument into a straw argument by requiring the elimination of the death penalty to eliminate error in its application. That’s why I think you are a troll. No rational person would make the error of logic you make after almost asking a reasonable question. And I think it is also a bit off topic to say so, because I can’t imagine any lawyer in the United States saying out loud that the execution of the innocent is okay as a cost of doing business. Lawyers are scummy, but not that scummy.
The reasonable question you almost ask is how I can be so certain that it is a “simple task” to not seek the death penalty in cases where guilt is not certain. For the sake of at least making a record of having answered this question, which in all fairness has not been asked, it is a matter of the standard of proof. It would not allow prosecutors to seek a death penalty or possibly at the level of imposing the death penalty absent a showing required for a civil summary judgment: for a federal case that means that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the defendant committed the acts and that the acts are subject to the death penalty. (California requires a “substantial issue of material fact” each jurisdiction has different wording.)
Practically that would require that the case not turn on any kind of swearing contest. This additional hurdle would eliminate seeking the death penalty in cases of circumstantial evidence and swearing contests. My proposal would require that such a motion be brought by the prosecutor prior to the trial to see whether the death penalty could be sought. It is not now a legal requirement, I know of no movement to do this. It is a suggestion to eliminate repeating the many, many, many instances previously cited of the death penalty being given to the innocent.
The alternative is to proceed on handing out the death penalty the same way it has been done in the past, which would have a high likelihood of killing innocent people. I find it unacceptable that any innocent person is executed as “the cost of doing business.” And I find it utterly unbelievable that any non-troll would find that the execution of the innocent is acceptable.
Moreover, I cannot imagine any US lawyer publicly stating that the occasional execution of the innocent is acceptable for whatever reason. Not even Bushco lawyers. So it is a bit off-topic. US lawyers are scummy, but not as scummy as someone directly or indirectly acceding to the execution of the innocent, as some in this thread are doing.
All your information about the legal industry appears to come from movies and TV shows.
First of all, it’s not like there is one lone attorney who gets a big check for all this at the end of the case. There are usually dozens of attorneys and support staff, not to mention outside accountants, consultants, experts and vendors all who need to get paid. The cases stretch on for months or years, with all these individuals billing out at $100s an hour.
Why? Because these cases are extremely complex. Unfortunately they aren’t so cut and dried as “big company with deep pockets lost money so they are guilty.”
Wow…you must be a really shitty attorney. This whole thread of lawyers being scummy can be summed up and illustrated simply by referencing you as the poster child of scummy attorneys. Your ranting and raving that no one likes the poor widdle attorneys is worse than childish.
So far you have been the one making vague assertions and oversimplifying.
“Zero actual evidence”?
Try posts number 49, 50, 56, 85, 110 and 133 from me alone. Where is your evidence counselor? Is this how you do it in court? Ignore anything the other side says and instead call them names and throw a tantrum? Does that work? If it does need there be any bigger indictment of shitheads like you in the justice system?
So there is no learning curve. Every case is so complicated that ,your experience is no help. They don’t get easier? Of course billable hours is another point of contention.
Do we need a clearer example of the law profession being a bunch of scumbags?
This goes right to the heart of justice for the rich, the rest of you are fucked.
To wit:
So, more lawyers per capita than any other country on earth but the lawyers are so freaking expensive only the wealthy can afford them and the “pro se fuckwits” have NO OTHER RECOURSE than to attempt to represent themselves.
Then they meet sneering, condescending shitholes like **ivn1188 **who are pissed that the people defending themselves have not been trained in proper court procedure.
That is akin to a doctor looking on and criticizing your attempts to save someone’s life because you have no medical training. Of course the doctor will look on and sneer at your attempts but won’t actually help if you can’t pay.
There are several problems with this observation. First, in any large firm, there are going to be more associates and partners, and the hourly fees for the latter are going to be less than that of the former, as I understand things. Second, your link mentions only the “average” price, withotu specifying whether that is the median, mean, or the mode. For the article to hold much argumentive weight, it would need to specify what the most likely hourly rate is that a person would be charged for a lawyer’s services.
I’m afraid that sort of analytical reply is typical of the sort of scum-sucking, penny-pinching, argumentative bastarddom that infests the legal profession. You ought to accept the moronic reasoning at face value and admit that lawyers are, in fact, lower than the gutter.
Moronic reasoning like this? I have provided cites galore throughout this thread.
Where are your cites?
People wonder why lawyers are despised in general? It is this sort of hand wave it away, everyone who criticizes them are morons that leads to that very conclusion.
