Criticizing Lawyers, Teachers & Dating

[Town Heretic]

Actually, executing people for capital crimes is dispensing justice, but giving a person a new kidney is not dispensing good health.

You seem heavily invested in trying to score a semantics win and not that invested in the underlying consideration...but no, again, justice isn't a thing any more than health. It's an outcome or state and my answer stands for the reasons given here:

Doctors do not dispense good health.

Neither health nor justice are things dispensed. Rather, good health and the peaceful enjoyment of right are states to be pursued and protected. A physician uses his art to bring someone in ill health to the closest approximation of good health that he can. Similarly, the legal system and practitioners endeavor to place injured parties in as close a proximity to the state they should have enjoyed but for the malfeasance or irresponsibility of another party.

Which is a spin off from your peculiar:

Lawyers are completely unnecessary in order for justice to be served.

By and large that's simply not true. Miscarriages of justice are what you disproportionately court when you don't have learned practitioners involved and even when you do it's not a given, which is why in our system of justice and equity we have weighted presumptions and an involved system of appeals.

 

[Stripe]

You seem heavily invested in trying to score a semantics win and not that invested in the underlying consideration.

Words have meaning. Your metaphor was invalid for the reasons given. If you want to speak about the fundamentals of this issue, I will gladly follow.

The fundamentals include this: It takes only one man to make and pass correct judgement. Lawyers are unnecessary.

Miscarriages of justice are what you disproportionately court when you don't have learned practitioners involved.

Miscarriages of justice are what we live with day in and day out. Typically, justice is not served.

 

[resurrected]

Miscarriages of justice are what we live with day in and day out. Typically, justice is not served.

have you noticed how he's squirming away from addressing the case of the pedophile whose scumbag lawyer got him off with a slap on the wrist (an ankle bracelet) which he cut off and ran out and murdered a mother and raped her ten year old daughter, only to get another scumbag lawyer who kept him from getting the sentence he deserved?

looks to me like there's two scumbag lawyers and two scumbag judges deserving of swift execution


along with one scumbag murderer/pedophile/rapist who deserves a lingering, painful death

 

[resurrected]

Sorry, do you think the Putin system has a smaller % of convictions?

not sure you're helping town's case here juke :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Words have meaning.

Sort of redundant, don't you think?

Your metaphor was invalid for the reasons given.

It wasn't, as per my answer.

If you want to speak about the fundamentals of this issue, I will gladly follow.

I actually have and did and you took a slice of one and so my answer.

The fundamentals include this: It takes only one man to make and pass correct judgement. Lawyers are unnecessary.

It only takes one man to pass incorrect judgment too. And the fewer checks you have the more likely that outcome. That's why and how our system developed.

Miscarriages of justice are what we live with day in and day out.

That would be the gross exception to the general rule and the record of appeal, among other things, objectively establishes my point.

Typically, justice is not served.

That's simply not true and can't be argued using any objective data.

 

[resurrected]

Criticizing Lawyers, Teachers & Dating

This is the show from Monday March 12th, 2013

* Aurora Killer’s Judge Mocks Justice: The judge in the Aurora Theatre Massacre case has entered a plea of “not guilty” on behalf of the killer. Find out why that judge, Blackstone and all the other lawyers are mostly wrong when it comes to justice.

gee, if only there was a way that town could call up bob and tell him he's wrong :think:

 

[annabenedetti]

Sort of redundant, don't you think?


It wasn't, as per my answer.


I actually have and did and you took a slice of one and so my answer.


It only takes one man to pass incorrect judgment too. And the fewer checks you have the more likely that outcome. That's why and how our system developed.


That would be the gross exception to the general rule and the record of appeal, among other things, objectively establishes my point.


That's simply not true and can't be argued using any objective data.

Some people talk big about not needing lawyers... until they need one.

 

[Stripe]

It only takes one man to pass incorrect judgment too.

Why would he do that?

And the fewer checks you have the more likely that outcome.

And the more checks we have, the more likely they are to prevent an outcome. Justice is the goal, not checks upon a process.

That's why and how our system developed.

Your system developed because men hate justice.

That would be the gross exception to the general rule and the record of appeal, among other things, objectively establishes my point.

Nope. The rule is, under your system, that justice is delayed for decades and administered in a form where the execution is almost utterly divorced from the crime.

That is in the very tiny percentage of cases where it is seen.

That's simply not true and can't be argued using any objective data.

There is one objective data point that serves as the foundation for this thread. It is but a single example of what happens every day with only a tiny slice of the most egregious cases having any chance of seeing the guilty man executed -- and that likely not to happen for 25 years.

 

[resurrected]

Some people talk big about not needing lawyers... until they need one.

why would they need a scumbag lawyer if not to defend themselves against another scumbag lawyer?

 

[Granite]

Some people talk big about not needing lawyers... until they need one.

Usually the type who's convinced he's way smarter than he actually is.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

While the rich do tend to get the best of everything you might be surprised at how many top shelf lawyers and firms do a great deal of pro bono. Even with that effort everyone won't have access to the same legal talent and that's why, in part, we have both a heavily weighted presumption in favor of defendants and a system of appeals.

I'd be hard-pressed to find a better system, but that is not good reason to my mind to shirk improvement.

**Not to give credence to stripe's idiotic statements. I still agree with you in regard to lawyers.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It only takes one man to pass incorrect judgment too. And the fewer checks you have the more likely that outcome. That's why and how our system developed.

It beggars belief that those opposed to the system are somehow too invested in their own bias - or just plain thick - to recognize how loony it would be to place the potential lives of people on the final decision of one person.

Just bizarre.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why would he do that?

Because he's human and makes mistakes? It wouldn't have to be intentional. Just what kind of stress would just the one person be under if a potential life laid in the hands of their decision only? Seriously, do you even think these things through before typing out what amounts to nothing more than an ill considered soundbite?

And the more checks we have, the more likely they are to prevent an outcome. Justice is the goal, not checks upon a process.

Eh? So essentially you're okay with there being less stringency with determining whether someone is guilty or not? Do you not even see how contradictory that is to your own goal? (You score plenty of own goals in debates I've noticed)

Your system developed because men hate justice.

And...another silly and laughably ignorant soundbite.

Nope. The rule is, under your system, that justice is delayed for decades and administered in a form where the execution is almost utterly divorced from the crime.

Because only justice can be served if it takes place a few hours after a conviction? There's a reason why there's an appeals process and even you should realize why that is.

There is one objective data point that serves as the foundation for this thread. It is but a single example of what happens every day with only a tiny slice of the most egregious cases having any chance of seeing the guilty man executed -- and that likely not to happen for 25 years.

In other words your idea of justice = conviction - execution the following morn? After laying the final decision on one man to determine guilt? You're an absolute ignoramus. Go back to talking about 'evolutionists' et al. Your posts are nothing short of tedious and ill informed at best...

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Why would he do that?

Is that a serious question or are you being intentionally dense?

It beggars belief that those opposed to the system are somehow too invested in their own bias - or just plain thick - to recognize how loony it would be to place the potential lives of people on the final decision of one person.

Just bizarre.

Nevermind Stripe, you don't have to answer that, Arthur is on top of things.

 

[Town Heretic]

Why would he do that?

Why do people disagree on important things they've considered exhaustively? Many reasons, from honest mistake to malfeasance, with error and bias in between.

And the fewer checks you have the more likely that [an unjust] outcome.

And the more checks we have, the more likely they are to prevent an outcome.

Well, no. There's nothing reasonable about that posit. Like suggesting the more safety devices we have on an automobile the less safe it becomes.

Justice is the goal, not checks upon a process.

It is just that you should not be deprived of what is rightfully yours and that someone who deprives you should be punished. And those checks are in place to forestall error in seeing that done and to make tyranny a less likely interference in that process, both of which your notion invites as a greater likelihood. That's one reason we no longer live in an age of kings.

Your system developed because men hate justice.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

...The rule is, under your system, that justice is delayed for decades and administered in a form where the execution is almost utterly divorced from the crime.

Actually the overwhelming majority of cases are settled and sentence imposed in short order.

My remarks weren't limited to capital cases or only criminal cases and your personal, subjective response to the time required to do what we can to assure a just verdict in the relatively small percentage of cases that go to trial isn't the issue.

That is in the very tiny percentage of cases where it is seen.

Complete nonsense, supra. The vast majority of cases don't even go to trial.

There is one objective data point that serves as the foundation for this thread.

No, that's an anecdote being confused with something it can't serve, absent a larger proof.

Some cars are made poorly and as a result horrific deaths and injury occur that would stir anyone's outrage, but it doesn't follow that all or most cars are made in that fashion. In fact, most of them are remarkably safe.

I'd be hard-pressed to find a better system, but that is not good reason to my mind to shirk improvement.

**Not to give credence to stripe's idiotic statements. I still agree with you in regard to lawyers.

I'd agree and most bars are actively involved in measures and programs to promote that very thing.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I think a more general quote would do;

P.S. If Enyart actually read and understood then ..... the world would be a better place.

 

[Stripe]

Why do people disagree on important things they've considered exhaustively? Many reasons, from honest mistake to malfeasance, with error and bias in between.

People who do their jobs well do not make mistakes like executing people when they should not be or letting them go when they should be executed. And people who lie about these things should be punished by the very system they purport to serve.

And the fewer checks you have the more likely that [an unjust] outcome.

Nope.

The more checks there are, which is what we have a ton of now, the greater the incidence of injustice, which is epidemic now under your system.

Well, no. There's nothing reasonable about that posit. Like suggesting the more safety devices we have on an automobile the less safe it becomes.

The more safety devices there are on a vehicle, the lazier its driver becomes.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Nope.
It's perfectly rational.

Actually the overwhelming majority of cases are settled and sentence imposed in short order.

The overwhelming majority of cases should not even be cases -- hence the conclusion that they add to injustice.

The vast majority of cases don't even go to trial.

If they do not go to trial, they should not be cases.

That's an anecdote.

It's an example of where your system released a guy who should have been executed, who went on to become a murderer. Something that happens regularly.

 

[resurrected]

It's an example of where your system released a guy who should have been executed, who went on to become a murderer. Something that happens regularly.

how to characterize town's dishonest attempts to trivialize this case as an "anecdote"?

:think:

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

People who do their jobs well do not make mistakes like executing people when they should not be or letting them go when they should be executed.

I'm not aware of anyone that is so good at their job that they are infallible, are you?

 

[resurrected]

I'm not aware of anyone that is so good at their job that they are infallible, are you?

i believe stripe qualified it with "like executing people"


how many people do you know who, when they make a mistake at their job, accidentally excute people?