Re: We're royally fucked -- It's Debateable

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3] ]

Subject: Re: We're royally fucked

Author:
Anne

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:46:29 06/29/02 Sat
In reply to: Astrid 's message, "Re: We're royally fucked" on 13:33:59 06/29/02 Sat

>>
>>I understand what you're saying, and I admit that
>>there is a fine line. But I'm not talking about your
>>everyday defense attorney. We all know that there are
>>criminals who get off *only* because their attorney
>>found one small shred of a technicality. Never mind
>>that said criminal was indeed *guilty*. I mean, does
>>anyone think OJ was innocent??
>>
>>The Bill of Rights is to protect the *innocent*. Not
>>help the guilty get off on a technicality.
>>>
>
>I disagree. Those "technicalities" are there to
>protect the innocent, too. And any lawyer who didn't
>use every opportunity available to him to defend a
>client would be practicing bad ethics, I think.

But I'm talking only about technicalities that get the *guilty* off. I agree that attorneys have a duty to use every opportunity available to defend a client.

There's a fine line, to be sure.

The best example I can think of is this:

Your daughter is raped. DNA proves the rapist and there is an eyewitness. The rapist is guilty *beyond a shadow of a doubt*. But because police mishandled a piece of evidence, he gets off. I don't go for that. And I don't think that's what the Bill of Rights had in mind either.

I realize you don't really know a person's guilt or innocence until well into the trial process. But sometimes, guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt *is* known, and the person still gets off.

Those are the people I'm talking about when I say they have no rights. At least not as far as I'm concerned.

Anne

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: We're royally fucked	Astrid	21:41:21 06/29/02 Sat

Re: We're royally fucked	Alan	07:39:49 06/30/02 Sun
Re: We're royally fucked -- Michelle, 12:42:14 06/30/02 Sun Re: We're royally fucked -- Alan, 03:50:32 07/01/02 Mon
Re: We're royally fucked	Alan	07:41:39 06/30/02 Sun