First, I'm going to respond, but that will be the end of it in this thread.
Do not further drag this thread off topic.
rc, if you have anything further to say to Spats or to me about your notions about lawyers or the legal system, say it to us privately by PM. Further public posts in this thread similar to your last ones will be dealt with harshly.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rc
Last time I checked I was entitled to freedom of speech....
|
This is private property, and the First Amendment doesn't apply here.
In any case, freedom of speech does not mean that others can't call you out for making preposterous and unsubstantiated claims.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rc
...Facts are ommitted and assertions made by each side to try and convince or mislead the judge and jurry to a particular conclusion...
|
Clearly you don't understand how things work in a trial.
A trial is an adversarial proceeding. Each side has an ethical and professional obligation to, within the framework of the applicable rules, zealously and vigorously represent the interests of his client. And therefore:
- The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to put forth, consistent with the applicable rules of evidence and procedure, every fact that will be helpful to his side's interests.
- The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to argue the law as most favorable to his side's interests.
- The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to challenge the other side if he thinks that the other side has overstepped the rules or if he thinks the evidence put forth by the other side is not credible.
- The judge is there to rule on disputed matters of law and generally see that the rules of evidence and procedure are followed.
- Thus the adversarial system encourages that all facts material to the deciding of the dispute get out on the table.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rc
...we have seen time and again people get away with murder and other people wrongfully convicted and later cleared with DNA evidence...
|
No system devised and operated by humans is perfect. Mistake can be made, but considering the enormous amount of matters processed through the legal system, they are few.
So if you have a foolproof way of deciding legal matters perfectly, let Spats and I know (by PM), and we'll pass it along.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rc
...Lawyers are out to win cases at all costs. That's not a recipe for honesty and ingegrity...
|
- Yes lawyers want to win cases. More importantly, our clients want us to win cases.
- When a lawyer loses a case, his client goes to jail (or gets otherwise punished, if it's a criminal matter), or loses money or something else of value (in a civil matter).
- If you were in legal trouble, I suspect that you'd want your lawyer to win your case too.
- As far as honesty and integrity goes, in every State, in order to practice law, a lawyer must adhere to rules of professional responsibility and ethics enforced by the courts and/or the State Bar Association.
- Lawyers who don't operate in accordance with the rules can be lose the right to practice law (either temporarily or permanently). They can thus lose their livelihood.
- Lawyers work long and hard to earn the right to practice law and to build their practices and professional reputation.
- The practice of law is highly competitive (and lawyer by their nature are competitive). It is not in our interests to have other lawyers getting away with ethical or professional violations.
- Just for an example, the June, 2013, edition of The Journal of the California State Bar lists 16 now former lawyers who have been disbarred and 17 lawyers placed on suspension or probation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rc
...Conferring guilt from silence is wrong in my opinion.
|
Then write your legislators. They can change that in your State.