Complicity

[Gorbles]

So you don't feel a defence lawyers first duty is to their client?
In the UK it isn't, its to the court, but I can see that easily lending itself to the Stalinist/ Fascist version where the lawyers first duty was to the people which effectively meant the state.
However convenient to Mafioso and racketeers etc the US version has its merits too.
There will be people saying "I was only doing my job" whichever system you have.

There are differences, but obviously even in the UK there is some acquiescence to the client. I get that, and it's obviously something people in this profession have to deal with (to whatever extent that they do). I haven't given it enough thought as to how improve it (if it weren't driven primarily by being a paid profession, which is of course why such lawyers typically exist). I'd probably lower red tape in the way of lawyers abandoning their clients and provide financial incentive for doing so, to avoid defending obvious criminals on a technicality, just to win the case.

This isn't a foolproof solution and of course is an idealistic one, because it requires people to not exploit it. It also requires funding, which is 9 times out of 10, the reason progressive change is rarely enshrined in law. A lot of rich people have a vested interest in staying rich!

I'm mainly on a monologue at this point, the ethics of criminal law aren't something I'd ever want to delve into because it'd probably reduce me to nihilism pretty darned fast But I stand by that there is a moral cost to willingly defending people you know are guilty (and defense lawyers often will given what they often need to be privy to on a case), and that this makes them complicit in any future crimes that the person goes on to do, should the lawyer keep them out of jail. Because that's the trade you're making, by taking that case, and taking it with the intent of winning it.

 

[AmazonQueen]

There are differences, but obviously even in the UK there is some acquiescence to the client. I get that, and it's obviously something people in this profession have to deal with (to whatever extent that they do). I haven't given it enough thought as to how improve it (if it weren't driven primarily by being a paid profession, which is of course why such lawyers typically exist). I'd probably lower red tape in the way of lawyers abandoning their clients and provide financial incentive for doing so, to avoid defending obvious criminals on a technicality, just to win the case.

This isn't a foolproof solution and of course is an idealistic one, because it requires people to not exploit it. It also requires funding, which is 9 times out of 10, the reason progressive change is rarely enshrined in law. A lot of rich people have a vested interest in staying rich!

I'm mainly on a monologue at this point, the ethics of criminal law aren't something I'd ever want to delve into because it'd probably reduce me to nihilism pretty darned fast But I stand by that there is a moral cost to willingly defending people you know are guilty (and defense lawyers often will given what they often need to be privy to on a case), and that this makes them complicit in any future crimes that the person goes on to do, should the lawyer keep them out of jail. Because that's the trade you're making, by taking that case, and taking it with the intent of winning it.

Well I worked in prosecutions so we tended to have a fairly low opinion of defence lawyers but at some point they are essential and in the case of an overpowerful state become even more so. If you took on the case of the Birmingham 6 or the Guildford 4 you were defending people "everyone" knew were guilty. Isn't it important that we had defence lawyers prepared to take on those cases however clear guilt looked to most people at the time?

 

[Gorbles]

Well I worked in prosecutions so we tended to have a fairly low opinion of defence lawyers but at some point they are essential and in the case of an overpowerful state become even more so. If you took on the case of the Birmingham 6 or the Guildford 4 you were defending people "everyone" knew were guilty. Isn't it important that we had defence lawyers prepared to take on those cases however clear guilt looked to most people at the time?

Yeah, I definitely don't think there should be barriers to taking the cases, because otherwise we don't have a defined structure for actually proving the guilt. It's after that point it starts to get murky, and TV references aside, real life is complicated enough when it comes to actual criminal activity for simply dropping the case to be a simple matter.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Yeah, I definitely don't think there should be barriers to taking the cases, because otherwise we don't have a defined structure for actually proving the guilt. It's after that point it starts to get murky, and TV references aside, real life is complicated enough when it comes to actual criminal activity for simply dropping the case to be a simple matter.

Much as I'm inclined to stick the boot in to the US at every opportunity this is one area where I don't think their system necessarily works much worse than ours.
Not that either works particularly well. From what I understand a publicly appointed defender in the US is desperately on their way to some other role in the US system much like a solicitor or barrister reduced to working legal aid cases in the UK. Helping the needy just doesn't pay.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I mean, yes? Not only is "just doing your job" a famously poor justification, a lot of investigative (and creative) work based on lawyers and the law focuses on the ethical quandaries and the personal cost it accrues.

I see defense lawyers as QA for the justice system and they should always do their best job to defend their clients. I guess I've never considered the case where someone might confess their crime to their defense lawyer but still plead not guilty but I don't really think it changes my opinion. The defense needs to make sure the rest of the system is above board at all times, no matter how obviously guilty the accused is.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Silence is complicity. Inaction is complicity.

Damn, I didn't realize that all the murdered Jews in Germany were complicit in their destruction.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I see defense lawyers as QA for the justice system and they should always do their best job to defend their clients. I guess I've never considered the case where someone might confess their crime to their defense lawyer but still plead not guilty but I don't really think it changes my opinion. The defense needs to make sure the rest of the system is above board at all times, no matter how obviously guilty the accused is.

Its something the British system specificly allows for but a British lawyers first responsibility is supposed to be to the court, not their client.

 

[El_Machinae]

I guess I've never considered the case where someone might confess their crime to their defense lawyer but still plead not guilty but I don't really think it changes my opinion.

In the justice system, the Crown needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Pleading 'not guilty', even when you're guilty, is your right because the Crown must prove its case. Obviously, it would be 'better' if guilty accused people went on to admit their guilt, but that doesn't change the first two sentences.

A lawyer cannot suborn perjury, however. So, if the client privately confesses, the lawyer has a harder time putting him on the stand. They still will, but they warn the client (in private) to not lie. You'd put your client on the stand in order to dispute falsehoods in other people's testimony, etc. It's rarely, done, but it can happen.

Anyway, there's a neat ritual that happens once a lawyer catches their own client lying on the stand. Once they detect their client lying, they'll turn to the court "I have no more questions for my client, however my client may continue speaking on his own behalf". In some ways, they're ratting out the client, but not really. But there's a conundrum created by "the lawyer cannot suborn perjury, and the client has the right to speak in his own defense".

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Damn, I didn't realize that all the murdered Jews in Germany were complicit in their destruction.

An absolutely lukewarm take.

The non-Jewish german populace, the ones not ctargetted by the Nazis however were.

 

[Berzerker]

reminds of the scene in the Devil's Advocate when Keanu Reeve's character is defending some guy who molested a girl and cant do it when he realizes he's guilty

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's like saying "I'm not against gay rights, but I'm not going on vote anything relating to gay rights or do anything to raise their profile". By doing nothing, that person contributes to the status quo, and nothing changes for the group in question. Ergo, they become complicit in the status quo, because by their inaction they are maintaining it.

But the current status quo is that gay people already have all the same rights as everyone else, plus the bonus right to enter into a civil partnership if they wish. So there would be no contradiction there.

 

[Senethro]

But the current status quo is that gay people already have all the same rights as everyone else, plus the bonus right to enter into a civil partnership if they wish. So there would be no contradiction there.

Its a poor pedant that can't himself make note that rights accorded by laws vary. You look like you just wanted to give a lazy answer.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In general I think it's a fairly sound statement that "supporting the existence of X/not being against the existence of X" and "doing nothing" are entirely compatible in a world where X already exists. You don't have to be actively working to raise the profile of X in order to be behaving consistently with your stated stance.

For example I'm not opposed to your right to own shoes, but I'm doing bugger all to promote awareness of you owning shoes. This doesn't mean I want to take your shoes from you. Enjoy your shoes.

 

[Senethro]

Laws in nations change, backwards and forwards,(example: we see abortion being made illegal by 1000 small changes in America) or unevenly within a nation (Gay marriage not legal in all regions of UK). Assuming that people mostly maintain their views throughout their politically active life then they change role each time they begin living under a new set of laws.

If they are neutral in one set of circumstances and negative in another then they are overall negative. Claiming some kind of neutrality when actually you're just a temporary fence sitter who will later get down on the wrong side draws antagonism.

 

[Gorbles]

But the current status quo is that gay people already have all the same rights as everyone else, plus the bonus right to enter into a civil partnership if they wish. So there would be no contradiction there.

Not only is this a complete derail of what I was actually talking about, it also completely lacks awareness of the current problems facing LGBTQ people in both the US and UK these days. The fact you call a civil partnership a "bonus right" is staggering proof of this.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Laws in nations change, backwards and forwards,(example: we see abortion being made illegal by 1000 small changes in America) or unevenly within a nation (Gay marriage not legal in all regions of UK). Assuming that people mostly maintain their views throughout their politically active life then they change role each time they begin living under a new set of laws.

If they are neutral in one set of circumstances and negative in another then they are overall negative. Claiming some kind of neutrality when actually you're just a temporary fence sitter who will later get down on the wrong side draws antagonism.

The statement was about behaviour in a specific point in time (i.e. "now"), with respect to a specific set of lasws/rules/state of affairs/etc (i.e. "the status quo"), and how the one relates to the other. You're now trying to expand the statement to cover a large span of time where the status quo is changing in some specific way. Not really valid.

So I'll repeat - In general I think it's a fairly sound statement that "supporting the existence of X/not being against the existence of X" and "doing nothing" are entirely compatible in a world where X already exists. You don't have to be actively working to raise the profile of X in order to be behaving consistently with your stated stance.

And I'll add a little coda just for you - If, at some future time, X comes under threat, or even stops existing at all, then at that point "supporting X" and "doing nothing" would then be incompatible, or at least very much less compatible (although "not being against the existence of X" and "doing nothing" would still be compatible of course).

Would you like to expand it even more so I have to qualify further, or is that okay now?

Not only is this a complete derail of what I was actually talking about, it also completely lacks awareness of the current problems facing LGBTQ people in both the US and UK these days. The fact you call a civil partnership a "bonus right" is staggering proof of this.

Oh stop with the empty blather. It's a direct response to the specific example you gave. You shouldn't have used that example if you consider it a "derail" to get a response to it. "Problems" are not the same as "lack of rights". And a civil partnership is a legal arrangement that is only available to same sex couples*, so it is an extra legal right they have above and beyond different sex couples. "Bonus" would seem to be an appropriate word to apply to that. I welcome any actual meaningful counter to any of that, but "staggering lack of awareness" is just an empty retort that lacks any substance.

*Yes, technically this legal arrangement does not specify the sexuality of the people in this same sex couple, but in practice I think we can assume that same sex couples largely correlate with gay or bisexual individuals.

 

[Gorbles]

It was an example. Like the one directly after it where I then stated I wasn't interested in people claiming they didn't find it to be an issue. Maybe I should've typed it twice, though I doubt it would've helped with this incredibly tedious out of context quotation that you then performed.

It wasn't a case-proving point which required rebuttal. But please do continue with your empty blather

 

[yung.carl.jung]

No, it's actually the opposite. Reality constantly defies logic. Quantum systems exist in superpositions of multiple states at once; x does not equal x.

close, but no cigar. I would word it differently: reality, (that is empiricism and experience), constantly defies our knowledge (our epistemological explanation of the world) because by definition those explanations are post-hoc, modeled after previous, already established models. in that way reality HAS to defy current knowledge, otherwise we would have reached "the end of knowledge itself". truth is knowledge can never stand up to experience, because knowledge is our codified understand of it. all of this has little to do with logic, which is almost a priori, compared to knowledge, which is always a posteriori.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Was thinking more on a global scale. But I'm sure these all have their share of environmental problems as well, no?

I would argue these problems mainly came from personal failings and did not originate from foreign investment. if anything the only negative factor I can attribute to foreign investment vis a vis Germany is our dependency on gazprom I don't mean to say economic growth or foreign investment is always bad, that much we agree on. let me reformulate:

I think foreign investment in Africa and other post-colonial countries differs severely from foreign investment in industrial nations like Japan, Korea and Germany. where the former wasn't at all focussed on building something lasting, but rather making a profit for ONESELF (mass selling of assets is one perfect example), the latter was often STRATEGICALLY done in order to secure allies and political influence (America's military standpoints in S Korea is a perfect example).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It was an example. Like the one directly after it where I then stated I wasn't interested in people claiming they didn't find it to be an issue. Maybe I should've typed it twice, though I doubt it would've helped with this incredibly tedious out of context quotation that you then performed.

It wasn't a case-proving point which required rebuttal. But please do continue with your empty blather

Your whole point was about inaction contributing to the continuing existence of a status quo that denies a certain right or ideal, and that therefore if someone professes to support (or at least not oppose) that right or ideal, but at the same time takes no action, then that person's words and behaviour are in conflict. That was the point you were making (as I'm sure you're aware).

So if your "example" of this is a system where the status quo already supports that right or ideal... it's a very bad an non-illustrative example, because in this case inaction is not at all in conflict with the stated ideal. You should expect to have this pointed out. You can't just moan about people derailing when they do that. Choose examples that actually illustrate your point, not the complete opposite of your point.