- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for judges and attorneys...Where does your morality (if any) come into play ?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:38 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Presumably a 30-day response time for request for admissions would have to do with pretext of evidence analysis and review being necessary within a fair trial construct. The concept of fairness being a central tenet to morality, consider the issue explained.
I'd love someone to explain the morality of a 30-day response time for request for admissions.
1
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yeah the 1-year prescriptive period for torts in LA is found in Genesis.
Having 30 days to respond to an RFA is found in Two Corinthians
The EPA regulations on pesticides is found in Psalms
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:40 am to loogaroo
Question for Tigers fans… where does your morality (if any) come into play?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:43 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Presumably a 30-day response time for request for admissions would have to do with pretext of evidence analysis and review being necessary within a fair trial construct.
If it were this, it would be something more like 90 or 180 days
It's about efficiency, not fairness. Just FYI
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I have represented a person who killed another person. I got the charges dismissed. Was that immoral?
Did you feel proud of yourself when helped a killer walk free on a technicality? Is there not a small part of you that feels dirty for this?
When that person inevitably kills or maims someone else, are you going to feel any sort of responsibility?
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 10:45 am
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:The concept was literally addressed early in the thread.
I literally brought this up earlier, with no response, either.
I have represented a person who killed another person. I got the charges dismissed. Was that immoral?
quote:
SFP, whoever your mentor source was for that tenet did you a major disservice.
I'd hope the original messaging intent was to convey downplay of morality under assertion that every client deserves a full-throated defense regardless of personal belief, habit, or pursuit. e.g., Adam's defense of British soldiers was not popular, but it was exemplary.
In that regard, your field is not unique. Mine demands a similar approach. My responsibility is to provide best care to patients regardless of their personal appeal or repugnance. It is an interdisciplinary relational premise both intellectually and in practice.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:45 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Now that you see how corrupt prosecutors and the state can be ...
This is not a new thing, by the way.
A number of people have been proven to be factually innocent, and in some cases due to prosecutorial misconduct.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:46 am to SlowFlowPro
Serious question SlowFlowPro:
If a client confesses to you that they are guilty, what do you tell said client?
There was speculation that Robert Kardashian had knowledge that OJ was guilty, and because of that, told OJ he could not represent him in court with a not guilty defense.
Ultimately Kardashian was retained to be an advisor of his team, meaning he could not be called to testify against OJ.
It seems that due to Ethics, if a client confessed, no other defense could be presented for said defendant, no?
If a client confesses to you that they are guilty, what do you tell said client?
There was speculation that Robert Kardashian had knowledge that OJ was guilty, and because of that, told OJ he could not represent him in court with a not guilty defense.
Ultimately Kardashian was retained to be an advisor of his team, meaning he could not be called to testify against OJ.
It seems that due to Ethics, if a client confessed, no other defense could be presented for said defendant, no?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:47 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
every client deserves a full-throated defense regardless of personal belief,
OP takes offense to this
quote:
your field is not unique
Nobody has really made this argument
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:47 am to Sidicous
quote:
Lawyers and judges have no morality.
Lawyers and judges are governed by rules of ethics and professional responsibility (for lawyers) and judicial canons (for judges).
There is not one law school class entitled "Morality and the Law."
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:49 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
There is not one law school class entitled "Morality and the Law."
Because your morality is individual.
If you dont have any, youre probably a sociopath.
If you bypass it to profit, youre a fraud.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:49 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not fairness?
It's about efficiency, not fairness.
Interesting.
What is the purpose of efficiency? or for that matter, a "speedy trial"?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:50 am to riccoar
quote:
If a client confesses to you that they are guilty,
I don't ask. You're not supposed to ask.
quote:
what do you tell said client?
In the rare case where they confess unprompted, it depends on the evidence.
quote:
There was speculation that Robert Kardashian had knowledge that OJ was guilty, and because of that, told OJ he could not represent him in court with a not guilty defense.
That's why you're not support to ask. However, a NG plea isn't some sworn testimony. Over here, you cannot even plead guilty at arraignment for a felony.
quote:
if a client confessed, no other defense could be presented for said defendant, no?
This is a perfect example of the "trials aren't about the truth" I spoke of earlier.
The prosecution is about the prosecution's evidence. Knowing your client is guilty and the prosecution having a weak case are 2 concepts with a huge gap. The issue is if your client testifies, b/c you can't permit them to lie under oath. There's a whole procedure you're taught if this becomes an issue.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:51 am to chili pup
quote:
Who the hell can almost post post a half million times here. Who has the time for it.
A lonely person that thinks they know it all.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:51 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Did Binger behave ethically in the Rittenhouse trial?
I know who Rittenhouse is, but I do not know who Binger is. Sorry. I am guessing he may have been an attorney in the case? I just do not know enough to have an opinion....I try not to get caught up in the things the news media sensationalizes.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:54 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Lying is immoral. Unethical conduct is immoral. Of course those concepts should "come into play" in the practice of law. Practitioners guilty of such should be opposed, and vigorously addressed from a disciplinary standpoint.
Lying and unethical conduct are already addressed. Perjury is a crime. An attorney cannot advise his client to lie in open court, during a grand jury proceeding, during a deposition, or during any other legal proceeding.
Also, there are plenty of attorneys that are disbarred because of breaking ethical rules.
I'm pretty sure you thought you had a point here, but you didn't.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:57 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
What is the purpose of efficiency? or for that matter, a "speedy trial"?
RFAs aren't part of criminal law (so speedy trial as a concept doesn't exist).
And a speedy trial isn't guaranteed for all criminal trials. You have to move for a speedy trial and you give up a lot of "fairness" in doing so (using your usage of the term).
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:57 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:Please differentiate ethics from morality in terms of lying, in terms of extortion, in terms of embezzlement, etc.
rules of ethics
Please differentiate immoral behavior from behavior breaching "rules of ethics."
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:57 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Because your morality is individual.
If you don't have any, you're probably a sociopath.
If you bypass it to profit, you're a fraud.
Again, there is no class in law school entitled "Morality and the Law."
Posted on 5/21/24 at 10:59 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Please differentiate ethics from morality in terms of lying, in terms of extortion, in terms of embezzlement, etc.
Again, this is a consideration when creating these rules. If you want to say the rules of ethics are based in morality, fine. That still doesn't address practice, outside of violations of the rules (which would be defacto immoral and not worthy of discussion).
This discussion is about the practice of law, not the creation of law.
Page 10 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News