The Practice - child molester "not guilty&... (page 2)

Valis

As far as some XJW writer working for The Practice, unlikely IMO...I think a person can read lots into what they see on TV and make lots of assumptions, especially when one starts off being a delusional JW and then becomes a wary/paranoid XJW..*LOL*...Anyway, I don't think they are anti Catholic, just portraying relationships between people and priests that do change, and for lots of reasons. One would think that with all the pedophilia coverup by the Catholics, that even Barney would be anti Catholic..but hey we don't need any more paranoid XJW opining on that do we?

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

Mary

".....If he had confessed he guilt to his lawyers, how could they defend him? Don't they have any personal morals?....."

Surely you jest. Lawyers are the most corrupt people on the planet and they HAVE no morals. Look at these scumbag lawyers that are the defense lawyers for the Snipers! They're trying to get all kinds of evidence suppressed, even though they know full well that their clients are guilty, guilty, guilty!!

I swear to god, that lawyers are deprogrammed in law school, so that there's not twinge of guilt when they get a low life scum bag off scot free.

Defence lawyers seem to forget that their job is to see that their clients get a FAIR trial and to see that justice is done. Their job is NOT to try and use every trick in the book to get a guilty person off, but unfortunately, that's exactly what happens.

scootergirl

Anyone that has gone thru the court system w/regards to a pedofile and a child would know that these tactics (creditability of a child and witnesses) are common. Take it from me, I speak by experience. Without going into unnecessary details, I encountered this same tactic used by a defense attorney when I had to go to court regarding an issue in our family. I don't believe that it is a dub thing.

Edited by - scootergirl on 18 November 2002 16:10:47

Valis

Their job is NOT to try and use every trick in the book to get a guilty person off, but unfortunately, that's exactly what happens.

Ummm...what you call tricks are commonly referred to as points of law...of which you would certainly want your lawyer to "pull out all the stops" if you were indicted, guilty or not! Justice is a process and cannot be separated from a fair trial and as long as the tactics employed fall within the legal limits of the system. There are things that are ethical, moral, and legal. Imagine three connecting circles, much like the Olympic symbol. Each ring being ethical behavior, moral behavior, and legal behavior respectively...anything outside those three is illegal. Now think about some of the things you find objectionable (small lawyer joke)...Where do they fit in the example? Notice for instance abortion. It may fall in the legal realm, but not the other two. This is what makes it hard for people to stomach what lawyers do when they dance around the court room. One must also note that justice is often disserved by poor prosecutorial strategy and has little if anything to do in regards how unscrupulous a defense attorney may seem. If the prosecution slips and leave gaping avenues for a defense attorney to take advantage of then perhaps the notion of justice is schewed and maybe not.

Sincerely,

District Overbeer

waiting

Hello Mary,

I was going to quote your post - but figured it wasn't necessary. No - lawyers are not deprogrammed in Law School so they have no guilt. I have a son in 3rd year law, and he is currently learning corporate law - and bored to death. I think he'd relish some guilt removal at the moment.

I also have a son-in-law who is a good attorney. Other attorneys don't particularly care for him in the court (or in private life) - but he sticks by his client, and wins a good amount of time. Is he a saint? Lord! Far from it! But he's not evil, as you suggest. And btw, I've met some of his clients - they aren't all evil as you seem to assume. Many of them are just like you and me, just needing a good attorney to represent them.

I am also under the assumption that a defense attorney is to defend his client to the best of their ability. I know that sometimes the attorney will fight hard with their own clients (in private) to get them to see "the wisdom" of taking the plea bargain, etc.

"In a revolution, the first thing to be done is to kill all the lawyers." Napoleon

Interesting quote from both sides of the coin.

waiting

Mary

Waiting said: I am also under the assumption that a defense attorney is to defend his client to the best of their ability.

Yes, but this should only be to ensure that justice is done, NOT to try and get a guilty man off scot free!! Example? Look at the Samantha Runion case earlier this year. That poor little girl was raped and murdered by a known pedophile. The son of a bitch had been accused the year before by two young girls who BOTH said he molested them.

His slick lawyer, knowing full well his client did this, pulled out all stops and got this sick F#CK off, scot free. He was now able to resume him twisted, sick fantasies and repeated his crime. But now, an innocent little girl was DEAD. And this was all because a lawyer, with absolutely no conscience at all, was able to convince a jury that his client never really did anything wrong! These two girls were just a couple of liars! The rest is history.

This case alone shows the need for a change in the judical system. The word "fair" means "ethical, conscientious, honest, honorable." How is letting a guilty person off scot free, "fair"?

Everyone is entitled to a "fair trial" for sure. This was basically put in place to ensure that something like the Salem Witch Trials, never happened again and that innocent people were not found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. However, like everything else mankind does, they go overboard. Now it's not enough that someone has a "fair trial", you have to go all out to make sure that NO ONE is actually guilty of anything!

It's a sick system, and believe me, if it was your little girl that was raped and murdered, and some slick lawyer got the guilty guy off, you'd think quite differently.

mustang

Just for the record, the Prosecution is allowed to use Police tricks, chicanery and outright lies "to further a conviction". Was this meant to even the score? Likely not, but there it is for the nobility of the Defense's opposition.

Mustang

minimus

The reason he was found not guilty was because of Ray Franz.

The Practice - child molester "not guilty&...

Share this