You have no right to remain silent - anything you don't say may be held against you

[Hygro]

Does that work out well enough for you guys?

I was more referring to the fact that it'd make sense to get something passed at the federal level here, so that instead of just 1 state getting out of dodge, you'd cover all states in one stroke. Seems a lot more efficient.

Yes but I have no control over the legislative process outside my state. The ballot system does work well for us. It's messy, but nutritious.

No need. Amendments in place already cover this. We need no more laws about it. We just need to kill all lawyers.

Come on. Lawyers are the very people fighting to protect your rights. Lawyers wrote the Amendments that already cover this. Did you know the hate for lawyers came from a deliberate propaganda campaign by insurance companies back in the 1970s? Don't be their billboard.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No need. Amendments in place already cover this. We need no more laws about it. We just need to kill all lawyers.

What we actually need is a thorough dismembering of 'the body of law'. A judge...an official whose very existence is based on having a need for someone to pass judgement...is now totally caught in a fine meshwork of prior interpretations.

You say 'amendment is in place', and I can't help but agree. Now, armed with that amendment we put a judge on his seat and he says 'this was proper application of the guy's right to counsel, and that over there wasn't, case closed'. But because we have that other right, to equal treatment under the law, we can't have me getting burned at the stake by one judge while another judge is letting you go when you did the same thing.

So every judge who has ever ruled has split the hair into finer and finer pieces until it takes a lawyer to figure it all out. And if a judge makes a decision that counters one of those previous splitting of the hairs it's a wreck.

 

[warpus]

Yes but I have no control over the legislative process outside my state. The ballot system does work well for us. It's messy, but nutritious.

I suppose my initial post was more of a point that you should, but don't.

 

[Gori the Grey]

We just need to kill all lawyers.

Did you know the hate for lawyers came from a deliberate propaganda campaign by insurance companies back in the 1970s? Don't be their billboard.

bhsup's sentiment actually dates back at least as far as the 1590s, I believe.

 

[warpus]

The thing is that lawyers are just pawns. People with money are usually the ones pulling the strings and putting the lawyers to work in the first place.

Direct your anger at those behind these laws, not those who are just doing their jobs.

 

[bhsup]

bhsup's sentiment actually dates back at least as far as the 1590s, I believe.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The thing is that lawyers are just pawns. People with money are usually the ones pulling the strings and putting the lawyers to work in the first place.

Direct your anger at those behind these laws, not those who are just doing their jobs.

You do know that that defense went totally sideways at Nuremberg, right?


That aside...bhsup...if you are accused of a crime you have a constitutional right to have an attorney. If we kill all the lawyers it effectively makes it impossible under the constitution to accuse anyone of a crime...ever.

Suddenly, I find myself thinking this may have merit.

 

[Hygro]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Yes, but Shakespeare's character wanted to kill the lawyers to solidify his despotism.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Not quite, Hygro; it's one of Cade's followers. Still, bhsup, you have to be careful when you invoke the Shakespeare quote, because the character who says this is a <censored>.

 

[Hygro]

Not quite, Hygro; it's one of Cade's followers. Still, you have to be careful when you invoke the Shakespeare quote, because the character who says this is a Dick.

Right right. I'm no Shakespeare scholar.

 

[Camikaze]

I find it interesting that juries always seem to get a pass when bad decisions are made. Even if particularly problematic evidence is admissible, there's nothing forcing a jury to find it persuasive. I think people go easy on them because juries are meant to be a representation of society; it's easier to blames judges than your own representatives.

 

[bhavv]

Death makes me happy. View on this case would be that people die all the time, and there are already way too many humans on this planet.

Hello prison.

 

[Flying Pig]

I find it interesting that juries always seem to get a pass when bad decisions are made. Even if particularly problematic evidence is admissible, there's nothing forcing a jury to find it persuasive. I think people go easy on them because juries are meant to be a representation of society; it's easier to blames judges than your own representatives.

It's also because juries are notoriously easily influenced by other people in the court: when you're somebody with almost no experience of the legal system surrounded by brash, confident lawyers and judges, it's difficult to have an opinion independent of the advice that they're giving you. This is especially true because jurors are told not to do that - lawyers can be disciplined for reminding them of the extent of their freedom of action. There's also no good reason why members of the jury should be particularly well-versed in what constitutes good evidence, especially when the lawyers are saying that what they have is perfectly admissible.

 

[Antilogic]

It's also because juries are notoriously easily influenced by other people in the court: when you're somebody with almost no experience of the legal system surrounded by brash, confident lawyers and judges, it's difficult to have an opinion independent of the advice that they're giving you. This is especially true because jurors are told not to do that - lawyers can be disciplined for reminding them of the extent of their freedom of action. There's also no good reason why members of the jury should be particularly well-versed in what constitutes good evidence, especially when the lawyers are saying that what they have is perfectly admissible.

Man, this just reminds me of the time they cancelled my jury duty. I was going to rock that boat.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I find it interesting that juries always seem to get a pass when bad decisions are made. Even if particularly problematic evidence is admissible, there's nothing forcing a jury to find it persuasive. I think people go easy on them because juries are meant to be a representation of society; it's easier to blames judges than your own representatives.

Problem there is that only the lawyers know it is problematic. Once the hashing out of the yes/no question 'is it admissible?' is complete it either is or it isn't. The jury just sees a 'well respected law enforcement officer' calmly telling them that he was shocked and dismayed at the unbelievably calloused way the defendant just sat there in the back of the squad car.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yeah, juries too easily fall for the oinking coming from the witness stand.

 

[Takhisis]

Don't the lawyers representing both sides engage in some oinking at times?

 

[Hygro]

Problem there is that only the lawyers know it is problematic. Once the hashing out of the yes/no question 'is it admissible?' is complete it either is or it isn't. The jury just sees a 'well respected law enforcement officer' calmly telling them that he was shocked and dismayed at the unbelievably calloused way the defendant just sat there in the back of the squad car.

Yeah. It sucks too that people's intuitions, useful for making decisions for their own lives, are generally predictable and therefore easily abused by the court. You hope that the two lawyers cancel each other out but they don't.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah. It sucks too that people's intuitions, useful for making decisions for their own lives, are generally predictable and therefore easily abused by the court. You hope that the two lawyers cancel each other out but they don't.

If they do it's a hung jury.

The idea that a trial is about evidence is arguably false.

Two lawyers each try to create a coherent image of reality that can contain both the evidence and the outcome they are paid to include. Since they are paid to include mutually exclusive outcomes in their creations only one of them can succeed, and it is usually going to be the one who is best at his craft.

 

[JollyRoger]

Don't the lawyers representing both sides engage in some oinking at times?

We are sharks, not pigs.