Discuss law and lawyers.
We don’t know who’s guilty.
Sentences vary for the same offense. Guilty people need lawyers to argue for fair sentences and watch out for judges making mistakes.
We have enough laws that everyone is guilty of something. It may be a case of bias and selective enforcement.
Someone may be guilty of something but charged with something else or with multiple things that they didn’t do all of.
Smart, articulate criminals who are good at representing themselves in court would have a big advantage in a world where guilty people don’t have lawyers.
That’s true. When I originally shared that I think my mindset was on corporations who do bad things and people who represent them to help them not get in trouble for bad things. In my head criminal defense attorneys are good on a need by need basis but not on a continuous basis. Its weird to need a continuous defense team. I guess corporations don’t hire criminal defense lawyers on a continuous basis but they do have general lawyers to defend them against suits on a continuous basis.
But the lawyers shouldn’t do everything they can to reduce the sentences as much as they can? They shouldn’t for example try to prove innocence in court of a person they themselves believe to be guilty?
Should there exist state provided lawyers for people whom no private lawyer wants to represent?
Hmm. I think it may make sense to do anything they can in a legal ethical manner. Kinda answering it vague just because I don’t know how to answer it more precisely. I do think lawyers shouldn’t do literally anything. You may have not meant that (or you may have meant that), but some lawyers do some questionable things I’ve heard for their client.
Not an example from an actual case, but in the show The Lincoln Lawyer (TV series) - Wikipedia. There’s an episode where the main character, a defense attorney, helps to get a client off by having his client assault (by getting mad and stuff) and then having fake blood come out. The goal was to: get a mistrial, have a retrial, and the main witness for that retrial would be too scared to testify against his client. That kind of stuff is bad.
I know there’s different legal systems so I’m curious how the other ones work out, but at least in the U.S. I guess the argument goes something along the lines of: prosecutor does everything to get someone guilty, defense does everything possible to get someone innocent, the judge plays mediator, and then you somehow get a fair result (I’m not trying to be dismissive of this system, just how I wrote it out, I don’t feel like I know enough to be dismissive). If you don’t have a criminal defense attorney trying to prove them innocent I think the system wouldn’t work as well (at least how the U.S. system is).
I think ideally, no. But in the current world, yeah sure. Hmm. Initially I was thinking of how the U.S. requires public defenders for people who can’t afford a lawyer. I think with how much of a mess the justice system is, and the economy is, it makes sense to have lawyers available to poorer people. Especially cause they need the help they can get.
If you’re talking about no one being able to get representation I guess in todays context that would be fine to have someone to represent you from the state. However, I don’t think thats a realistic possibility that you could find a lawyer to represent you (outside of finances).
I started reading Examples & Explanations for The Law of Torts (6th edition) out of curiosity. The book is around ~400 pages. I plan to spend some time reading it daily and sharing about it here.
All quotes below are from Part I. Intentional Torts, Chapter 1 Fundamental Protections: The Tort of Battery:
Introduction
Medieval England, from which our tort law evolved, sought to deter physical aggression through a criminal remedy, the “appeal of felony,” for physical assaults and other invasions of personal interests. Harper, James & Gray, The Law of Torts §3.1 (3d ed. 1996)
I remember hearing that modern tort is quite different from older tort law. I wonder how much has changed from medieval torts.
Also I was a bit confused on how appeal was being used in “appeal of felony”. From appeal of felony definition · LSData :
The appeal of felony was a historical legal procedure in which a person accused another of a crime, demanded proof of innocence by wager of battle, or informed against an accomplice. It was also known as appellum de felonia.
Maybe I’m missing something but I’m kind of confused how this is a remedy for physical assaults. I don’t think this is super important so I’m just going to move on.
If the defendant was found guilty, she would be fined; that is, she would
have to pay a sum of money or forfeit her goods to the crown.
Huh. Interesting. Old torts were less about making the victim “whole” and were punishment focused like regular criminal law. Hmm. Are they claiming this stuff was old tort law or that tort law evolved from this old stuff. I think the latter.
For example, the tort of battery authorized damages for deliberate, unwanted contacts with the plaintiff’s person.
It seems as though this ought to be a very short chapter. Even the law, with its tendency to overanalyze, can only complicate a seemingly simple matter so much. And battery seems like a simple matter. Jones hits Smith: She has invaded Smith’s right to freedom from physical aggression and should be liable for any resulting injuries.
Sometimes it is that simple, but often it is not. Jones may have bumped into Smith because Lopez pushed her, or she may have collided with Smith while jumping out of the way of an oncoming car.
Since the courts have refused to condemn all unwanted contacts, they have struggled to craft a definition of battery that limits recovery to those types of contacts the law seeks to prevent. Most courts define battery as the intentional infliction of a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the plaintiff. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §13. Under this definition the defendant must act, her act must be intentional (in the restricted sense peculiar to tort law), the act must cause a contact with the victim, and the intended contact must be either harmful or offensive to the victim.
1 Like
I think I’ll respond more later, but for now I’ll show you why I thought of these questions:
It was specifically from the questions Peikoff got after the lecture, but you might find the entire video interesting if you haven’t heard it before.
To see better the purpose of defense attorneys, consider what the alternatives are. Then you can do comparisons and talk about pros and cons of alternatives. The cons of the alternatives help tell you what some of the pros of defense attorneys are.
Ahh. Gotcha. I’ve watched it before. I’ll rewatch it/rewatch the question section to see what you’re talking about and out of interest.
Oh yeah I think from what I remember I think Peikoff is kinda wrong nowadays in his opinion on the verdict. I’ll look up some stuff before making a strong claim but I remember hearing stuff about the O.J. trial that viewed it favorably. They could’ve been wrong but I think the podcast I listened to at the time made good arguments. Also I think a big thing for me now is that I’m more skeptical of the police. I think Miss Rand and Peikoff are quite favorable to the police at their time (I think Peikoff more so). Maybe the police was better at the time? But I doubt it. Another thing I guess I’ll have to look into. I do think modern U.S. police sucks.