- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Of course not. The 6th A does not guarantee every trial to be speedy. It guarantees the accused's right to a speedy trial if he exerts the privilege. You don't recognize the difference?
And a speedy trial isn't guaranteed for all criminal trials.
1
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:05 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Please differentiate ethics from morality in terms of lying, in terms of extortion, in terms of embezzlement, etc.
Ethics are rules that govern attorneys with regard to the duties they owe their clients and the legal profession.
Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
It's not my job to insert my moral convictions relative to how I represent a client. Also, you're conflating what influences law (how it is created) versus how it is practiced.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 11:07 am
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:06 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
It guarantees the accused's right to a speedy trial if he exerts the privilege. You don't recognize the difference?
I do. I was making this clear for the thread, since the non-lawyer population has largely gotten confused and merged ideas (like creating law v. practicing law, or applying criminal litigation concepts to civil litigation).
People routinely bring up "speedy trial" stuff with respect to J6 defendants, when the defendants are the ones delaying their trials, for instance.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not worthy of discussion even given the regularity of such conduct/misconduct in today's system?
violations of the rules (which would be defacto immoral and not worthy of discussion
Well, I guess that fairly obviously defines the problem.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:09 am to SlowFlowPro
Thank You for answering. Appreciate it.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:10 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
Again, there is no class in law school entitled "Morality and the Law."
Only a sociopath would conclude that morality is define by a class in law school. You did a great job illustrating the nature of law and sociopaths.
Or retard. You could be either.
Is it your view that if its legal, its moral? Do your personal beliefs (if you have any) not come into play?
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 11:13 am
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:12 am to SlowFlowPro
I know at times this country gets labeled as a two tier justice system on the basis of color.
That is simply not true.
The biggest difference is whether you can afford your own counsel. That matters more than people will admit.
That is simply not true.
The biggest difference is whether you can afford your own counsel. That matters more than people will admit.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:14 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Is it your view that if its legal, its moral?
Nope, hence why I have repeatedly posted that there is no class in law school entitled "Morality and the Law."
It kind of supports several posts prior to this one that explain why moral convictions and law practice are not one and the same. There is no "morality" carveout for zealous representation of a client.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 11:16 am
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:17 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Not worthy of discussion even given the regularity of such conduct/misconduct in today's system?
No. I said why. If we make the assumption that the ethical rules were created based on morality, then a violation is de facto immoral. End of discussion.
But that still has no place in this particular discussion, which is about the practice of law, not creation of law (which is where the above discussion on morality is placed).
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:18 am to riccoar
quote:
I know at times this country gets labeled as a two tier justice system on the basis of color.
That is simply not true.
The first thing the socialists should take over would be the legal profession.
If youre poor, you are fricked. Of course, since many lawyers are probably socialists, that would never happen. I doubt they have the willpower to cut their own income.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:19 am to riccoar
quote:
That is simply not true.
The biggest difference is whether you can afford your own counsel.
Yes, class/SES is the real distinction. The racial issue is just the issue of non-white SES averages (which is a larger discussion than just criminal law).
quote:
That matters more than people will admit.
For a variety of reasons, namely lawyer:client ratios.
The abuse of the bail system is another major issue, generally, but is amplified greatly with people coming from lower SES
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:23 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
Nope, hence why I have repeatedly posted that there is no class in law school entitled "Morality and the Law."
I have no clue why you keep saying this. No one has said otherwise.
You seem to believe unless its taught in law school, it has no bearing on your personal values.
Thats a person totally devoid of intuition.
This post was edited on 5/21/24 at 11:23 am
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:23 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
This is not a new thing, by the way.
No it is not.
But now that Trump is being attacked by a corrupt justice system, many are seeing for the first time.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:26 am to TrueTiger
quote:
But now that Trump is being attacked by a corrupt justice system, many are seeing for the first time.
Yes, but the frustrating part is many still won't apply the same outrage, generally.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 11:38 am to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:"Plenty"? What % is plenty? 0.5%? 1%? 5%?
there are plenty of attorneys that are disbarred because of breaking ethical rules.
What % of those who break ethical rules are disbarred?
I'm pretty sure you thought you made a point here, but you didn't. As least not yet. Perhaps you have actual stats or facts to shore it up though?
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But that still has no place in this particular discussion,
quote:
Why would you mix morality and the law?
Are you still pretending that they’re not mixed? Your positions are rather fluid in this thread.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:09 pm to Flats
quote:
Are you still pretending that they’re not mixed?
The practice of law and morality are not mixed.
There is an argument that morality comes into play with a very small subset of the creation of laws.
quote:
Your positions are rather fluid in this thread.
How? I have kept them consistent and even attempted to educate people on their own logical issues (trying to conflate creation of law with the practice of law).
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:15 pm to RogerTheShrubber
There's nothing prohibiting a lawyer from withdrawing as counsel from a case if it egregiously violates his concepts of morality or ethics.
That being said, I would represent a guy I knew to be guilty and do so as vigorously as possible because I want the state dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's if they are going to deprive you of liberty. I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I'm not someone you want representing you in a Captital case. But there are lawyers out there that do......a lot of them are former prosecutors.
The state expects and wants you to not avail yourself of all your rights.
That being said, I would represent a guy I knew to be guilty and do so as vigorously as possible because I want the state dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's if they are going to deprive you of liberty. I'm not a criminal lawyer, so I'm not someone you want representing you in a Captital case. But there are lawyers out there that do......a lot of them are former prosecutors.
The state expects and wants you to not avail yourself of all your rights.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:The prosecution withheld evidence from the defense in numerous instances.
The judge also addressed the issue directly and pretty emphatically.
Clearly some of those were not accidental. What disciplinary action was taken against Binger? Not a damn thing.
As you say the Judge addressed the issue "pretty emphatically." Binger will pull the same stunts next time, and the next Judge will address the issue "pretty emphatically." Rinse and repeat. The rules are for thee, not for me.
We have a shite system because there is neither interest nor incentive to improve performance.
Posted on 5/21/24 at 12:20 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The prosecution withheld evidence from the defense in numerous instances.
Huh? I google searched for his ethical violations and was only given his issues questioning KR on 5A stuff and poking into mistrial territory.
You should be more specific with your questions to avoid this issue.
quote:
What disciplinary action was taken against Binger? Not a damn thing.
Apparently, his conduct didn't violate the WI rules. Neither you, nor I, are privy to the investigation details, but we'd know if his conduct did violate their rules (it would be all over right wing media)
quote:
We have a shite system because there is neither interest nor incentive to improve performance.
I'm always open to this, but never get any good suggestions for this.
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News