Honest lawyer?

[WizardofOz]

Not in reality. Only within the system you are defending.

My issue is with the government, which says justice requires lawyers and their regulations.

Then you should reject the "status quo." :up:

You also don't seem to actually have a problems with lawyers, you have a problem with the entire legal system.

Offer an alternative.

 

[ok doser]

It just so happens that like everything else, you get what you pay for.

That's not true of any other governmentally provided service - why accept it in the "justice system"?

 

[WizardofOz]

That's not true of any other governmentally provided service - why accept it in the "justice system"?

A private law practice isn't a "governmentally provided service". Public defenders are, which is why they are provided at no cost.

On the other hand, name some other "governmentally provided service" so we can see it this is true. :think: The more we pay for roads, the better the roads. The more we pay for water purification, the more pure our water is. The more we pay our police, the better quality of officer you'll have in your community. The more we pay for the upkeep of our parks and publicly owned recreational areas, the better they will be maintained.

Come to think of it, which "governmentally provided service" are not improved by more funding?

 

[Stripe]

Offer an alternative.

Already done. :up:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

A private law practice isn't a "governmentally provided service". Public defenders are, which is why they are provided at no cost.

On the other hand, name some other "governmentally provided service" so we can see it this is true. :think: The more we pay for roads, the better the roads. The more we pay for water purification, the more pure our water is. The more we pay our police, the better quality of officer you'll have in your community. The more we pay for the upkeep of our parks and publicly owned recreational areas, the better they will be maintained.

Come to think of it, which "governmentally provided service" are not improved by more funding?

You got them goalposts on wheels, huh?

Also, your question was answered, but you presented a scenario that contradicted the very thing you were talking about.

Are you going to respond to what people say, or is your sole aim to protect the "status quo"?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[WizardofOz]

Already done. :up:

Where? :AMR:

You got them goalposts on wheels, huh?

Also, your question was answered, but you presented a scenario that contradicted the very thing you were talking about.

Are you going to respond to what people say, or is your sole aim to protect the "status quo"?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I was responding to ok doser in that post, not you. How have I moved goalposts or "contradicted the very thing" I was talking about? Being vague is failing you.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So, this isn't really even about lawyers for you. It's about your desire to do away with our entire legal system as we know it.

:think:

I am curious. What should the law look like? Just simpler or Mosaic Law? What is your ideal?

Four laws, two pages long.

Something like this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T2fh8RuGxX2k6Hujh44xpae0dmUODalo3j69doJ0BCM/edit?usp=drivesdk

Which is why a lawyer is offered to those accused of crimes at no cost if they cannot afford one.

Lawyers are not needed in a system where everyone knows and is familiar with the law.

It's a part of Miranda Rights, recited upon every arrest.

The Miranda Rights exist as a result of a corrupt and swollen legal system.

If everyone knows the law, the "Miranda Rights" are not needed.

It just so happens that like everything else, you get what you pay for.

Which is inequality from one case to another...

Which is counterproductive in a system where all are (or should be, as it currently stands) equal under the law.

Or have you never heard of the right to a fair and speedy trial?

I certainly feel for anyone framed in your system. It would probably be pretty easy to frame someone for a crime,

No one would want to "frame" anyone for a crime, because that is called perjury. See the punishment for perjury above in the document I linked to.

especially those of a limit mental capacity.

:AMR:

Is it two or three by the way?

A judge should weigh the evidence presented.

There is your problem

Because you say so?

There are plenty of children and individuals with mental handicaps that do not. Why presume they would? And, if they don't, and are accused of a crime, they probably need a lawyer to defend them. Don't you think?

Plenty of children and mentally retarded people who don't have parents or legal guardians?

What uncivilised society are you from? :mock:

How were all these people wrongly convicted? :think:

Didn't bother to read it, because just looking at the link url, it looks like a list of people who were wrongly convicted and were later exonerated.

Is that correct?

My answer, if so, remains the same as it has always been:

Those people would not have been put on trial in the first place, they wouldn't have been falsely accused, let alone wrongfully convicted and unjustly punished, in a proper justice system.

Two or three witnesses you say?

Yes.

On April 8, 1986,

Only the second year in which DNA was used as evidence in a trial...

in Lake Elsinore, a female clerk was working at a shoe store when, sometime between 11:30 AM and 12:00 PM, she was raped and robbed at gunpoint. During the rape, the assailant ejaculated and wiped semen onto her sweater.

Investigation and Trial

Following the rape, the victim was taken to the hospital where vaginal swabs were collected. Her clothing, including the sweater with the semen stains, was collected and marked for identification.

Witness #1, semen in her vagina. strong evidence

She then went to the police station and was shown yearbooks from a nearby high school but was unable to find her assailant. In fact, she did not identify Atkins until she saw a wanted poster for him on unrelated charges, and was then shown a photo lineup where she identified Atkins as her assailant witness #1.

Witness #2, positive identification of her rapist. weak evidence

A witness who worked at the store next to where the rape occurred was shown the wanted poster with Atkins’ picture and identified him as a man who had been in her store earlier that day witness #2.

Witness #3, an eyewitness who positively identified the same man in the woman's store. weak evidence

This is enough evidence to convict, and to sentence to death Atkins.

At trial, in addition to the eyewitness identifications, the prosecution proffered testimony from a criminalist with a state laboratory, who testified that the semen found on swabs was deposited by someone with blood type A

Witness #4, blood type. weak-strong evidence

and PGM 2+1+,

Not sure what this is, but from a cursory Google search for "PGM 2+1+", it has something to do with genetics.

Witness #5, genetic markers (?), weak-strong evidence

which are consistent with Atkins’ typing witness #3.

Atkins was charged with robbery and rape and sentenced to forty-five years in prison.

He should have been executed, not put in prison.

Penalty for rape should be death, so that the criminal will never commit such a crime again.

Post-Conviction Investigation​

Atkins’ case was accepted by the Innocence Project in 1993. After locating the sweater and vaginal swabs in 1995, the Innocence Project began trying to gain access to the evidence for DNA testing, which was granted in 1999.

After receiving the specimens, Forensic Science Associates performed DNA testing on the evidence collected at the crime scene. Testing was conducted on three separate areas of the sweater. In all three areas, the results were consistent and excluded Atkins.

Based on the test results, Herman Atkins was released from prison in February 2000, after spending twelve years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

So, as I'm unaware of the level of technology (though, with the introduction of genetic testing being in the late 70s/early 80s, there's no guarantee that the DNA would have been viable after so many years of preservation, but it is a possibility) or processes dealing with genetic information evidence preservation from the late 70s to today, and considering that appeals would not be allowed in a just system (except by the judges), AND since Atkins would have been executed (justly, as there were more than enough witnesses to convict), the rest of the article is moot.

Atkins's execution would be a deterrent to the next would-be rapist that if he is caught, he would be executed, and so innocent people would be spared.

If evidence later came to light that Atkins was wrongfully convicted, then the judge would be held responsible for the wrongful conviction.

 

[JudgeRightly]

A private law practice isn't a "governmentally provided service". Public defenders are, which is why they are provided at no cost.

On the other hand, name some other "governmentally provided service" so we can see it this is true. :think: The more we pay for roads, the better the roads.

Providing infrastructure is one of the responsibilities of the government. It should be funded using tax money, and only from a tax on personal increase alone.

The more we pay for water purification, the more pure our water is.

Again, part of infrastructure, but can be contracted out (as can road construction and maintenance) to private companies by the government, funded using tax money, same as above.

The more we pay our police, the better quality of officer you'll have in your community.

A police force falls under criminal justice, though, unlike judges, are paid only through, again, a tax on personal increase alone.

The more we pay for the upkeep of our parks and publicly owned recreational areas, the better they will be maintained.

Considered infrastructure. See above.

Come to think of it, which "governmentally provided service" are not improved by more funding?

Well, lets see:

Public welfare, Social Security, food stamps, foreign aid, pretty much any socialist programs/safety nets.

Those are just the ones I remember off the top of my head, and I'm sure there are plenty more.

None of which justify the use of lawyers in a system where the laws are few and known by all, which is what we are advocating for.

 

[WizardofOz]

:think:

Four laws, two pages long.

Something like this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T2fh8RuGxX2k6Hujh44xpae0dmUODalo3j69doJ0BCM/edit?usp=drivesdk

Lawyers are not needed in a system where everyone knows and is familiar with the law.

ShadowGov? :doh: It's been years since I've seen that floated around.

Judges will flog those convicted of fornication; of public use of vulgar sexual and excretory language; of sexually suggestive dress

Which words are off limits? Is it illegal to swear in Latin? How long must a woman's skirt be and who gets to determine this? Everyone knows and is familiar with the law so, enlighten me.

Justice is not a commodity to be bought and sold like chattel. It is a fundamental requirement of a civilized society.

Which is why a lawyer is offered to those accused of crimes at no cost if they cannot afford one. It's a part of Miranda Rights, recited upon every arrest.

The Miranda Rights exist as a result of a corrupt and swollen legal system.

If everyone knows the law, the "Miranda Rights" are not needed.

You've missed the counterpoint I made to your "Justice is not a commodity" statement. No one has to pay for a lawyer when one is provided at no cost. This completely nullifies your point. This is why legal counsel is available to everyone regardless of class, age, race or financial position.

It just so happens that like everything else, you get what you pay for.]

Which is inequality from one case to another...Which is counterproductive in a system where all are (or should be, as it currently stands) equal under the law.

Not when everyone is given legal counsel for free. :nono:

If they desire to, they can refuse counsel and defend themselves. It's completely up to the individual.

Or have you never heard of the right to a fair and speedy trial?

Non-sequitor. What does this have to do with the conversation?

No one would want to "frame" anyone for a crime, because that is called perjury. See the punishment for perjury above in the document I linked to.

If someone murdered someone they could easily frame someone with diminished mental capacities by planting evidence and meeting your 2-3 "witnesses" requirement.

Didn't bother to read it, because just looking at the link url, it looks like a list of people who were wrongly convicted and were later exonerated.

Is that correct?

Correct

My answer, if so, remains the same as it has always been:

Those people would not have been put on trial in the first place, they wouldn't have been falsely accused, let alone wrongfully convicted and unjustly punished, in a proper justice system.

There is that nagging presumption problem you have again. Are those glasses rose tinted, perhaps?

Witness #1, semen in her vagina. strong evidence

Witness #2, positive identification of her rapist. weak evidence

Witness #3, an eyewitness who positively identified the same man in the woman's store. weak evidence

This is enough evidence to convict, and to sentence to death Atkins.

Witness #4, blood type. weak-strong evidence

Not sure what this is, but from a cursory Google search for "PGM 2+1+", it has something to do with genetics.

Witness #5, genetic markers (?), weak-strong evidence

He should have been executed, not put in prison.

Penalty for rape should be death, so that the criminal will never commit such a crime again.

So, as I'm unaware of the level of technology (though, with the introduction of genetic testing being in the late 70s/early 80s, there's no guarantee that the DNA would have been viable after so many years of preservation, but it is a possibility) or processes dealing with genetic information evidence preservation from the late 70s to today, and considering that appeals would not be allowed in a just system (except by the judges), AND since Atkins would have been executed (justly, as there were more than enough witnesses to convict), the rest of the article is moot.

Atkins's execution would be a deterrent to the next would-be rapist that if he is caught, he would be executed, and so innocent people would be spared.

If evidence later came to light that Atkins was wrongfully convicted, then the judge would be held responsible for the wrongful conviction.

And there you have it. In your "improved" legal system, an innocent man was put to death.

What happens to the judge and who the heck would want to be a judge in this system of yours Enyart's?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which words are off limits? Is it illegal to swear in Latin? How long must a woman's skirt be and who gets to determine this? Everyone knows and is familiar with the law so, enlighten me.

Good questions. Who gets to determine what is "sexually suggestive"? The exposure of leg above the ankle or any showing of cleavage? And what exactly would constitute "swearing" even in English? Most of the common cuss words don't amount to blasphemy.

And there you have it. In your "improved" legal system, an innocent man was put to death.

What happens to the judge and who the heck would want to be a judge in this system of yours Enyart's?

Good luck getting anywhere with this one. I've been on that "merry go round" with JR a few times. It's inevitable that wrongful convictions could only go up under "his" system and no sane judge would want any bar of it...(pun half intended).

 

[fool]

:think:



Four laws, two pages long.

Something like this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1T2fh8RuGxX2k6Hujh44xpae0dmUODalo3j69doJ0BCM/edit?usp=drivesdk

Where in that two pages is things like speeding tickets and income tax evasion?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where in that two pages is things like speeding tickets and income tax evasion?

Fines are not necessary, a person would drive safe, or be punished appropriately for causing injury, property damage, or death.

Tax evaders would be flogged and forced to pay restitution to the government for theft, with a 5% income tax (0% is undoable, the government needs to be funded somehow, and 10% is tyrannical, based on scripture, so split the difference).

Getting flogged because one didn't pay a very low tax is enough of an incentive for people to pay the tax.

 

[fool]

Here's a thought. In Criminal Justice both sides should be Tax payer funded. You could bring private lawyers to help but just like there's a prosecutor assigned to your case there's a Public defender with the same resources.
Why do you have to be poor to get a PD? You paid your taxes and you're paying to prosecute yourself where's the other side of the coin?

 

[fool]

Fines are not necessary, a person would drive safe, or be punished appropriately for causing injury, property damage, or death.

So there's no speed limits in this world of yours?
Do people drive safe now? Death is already on the table for people going 100 mph but they still do it. We can't punish them until they wreck (if they survive)?

Tax evaders would be flogged and forced to pay restitution to the government for theft, with a 5% income tax (0% is undoable, the government needs to be funded somehow, and 10% is tyrannical, based on scripture, so split the difference).

But who is going to figure out the tax?
Even the simplest tax code involves tons of accounting. How does that work for a place like GM?

Getting flogged because one didn't pay a very low tax is enough of an incentive for people to pay the tax.

People go to prison for not paying tax now. Flogging would seem easier than 20 years.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Fines are not necessary, a person would drive safe, or be punished appropriately for causing injury, property damage, or death.

Sure, everyone would drive under the designated speed limit and there'd be no cases of anyone breaking it or driving under the influence whatsoever...

:doh:

Tax evaders would be flogged and forced to pay restitution to the government for theft, with a 5% income tax (0% is undoable, the government needs to be funded somehow, and 10% is tyrannical, based on scripture, so split the difference).

Getting flogged because one didn't pay a very low tax is enough of an incentive for people to pay the tax.

Yeah, there'd be no tax evasion at all. There's a real world of people out there outside of the theoretical one you seem to have convinced yourself of.

 

[Stripe]

Where? :AMR:

Good judges working with good evidence to serve justice.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

With OK, you first insisted that the free market should be in play, but then wanted to compare lawyering to state-controlled things like roads. With me, you asked if I would defend an innocent man, but then said only your system could establish innocence.

Goalposts on wheels and self-contradiction.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

Here's a thought. In Criminal Justice both sides should be Tax payer funded. You could bring private lawyers to help but just like there's a prosecutor assigned to your case there's a Public defender with the same resources.
Why do you have to be poor to get a PD? You paid your taxes and you're paying to prosecute yourself where's the other side of the coin?

Yes, because everyone deserves to have a guy on a government salary be a major player in whether they are executed.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[fool]

Yes, because everyone deserves to have a guy on a government salary be a major player in whether they are executed.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

At the very least.

 

[WizardofOz]

With OK, you first insisted that the free market should be in play, but then wanted to compare lawyering to state-controlled things like roads.

Who employs public defenders?

The state.

With me, you asked if I would defend an innocent man, but then said only your system could establish innocence.

:nono: Kindly quote me saying so

 

[Stripe]

At the very least.

Which turns the system into cash for the result you want. We prefer justice.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk