how can america claim to be fair and just when rich ppl get immensly better lawyers?

[Hum Dinger]

Look folks, about 15 years ago I broke up a fist fight. I did not strike anyone. The person who had started the fight and who was losing it filed a complaint with the police which resulted in myself and the other guy who actually was in the fight getting arrested.

I hired a VERY expensive Mahatten attorney to represent me (and no, my father did not pay for it). The only thing he did, besides filing the appropriate papers, was to announce the name of his law firm to the court and then declare that I was not guilty.

The judge then dismissed the case.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had only a court appointed attorney, I would have gone to prison.

The simple fact is: guilt or innocence had NOTHING to do with the outcome. The justice system is mindless. The only thing that mattered was the fact that I had paid the BIG BUCKS into the system. That is the ONLY thing that influenced the outcome.

It should be that all the wingnuts, who complain about crime being so bad and to support the conservative interpertation of the Constitution, should be the first to hate the current legal system. It is a total fraud and it is the main cause of continued crime in our society.


Of course wingnuts usually believe that arrest equals guilt - in contradiction to the Constitution.

Getting arrested when your innocent - when in fact all you did was help maintain the peace because there were no police there - is a fucking nightmare.

Fortunately, I could afford to buy into the system. Many people can't.

So tens of thousands of innocent people go to prison or lose lawsuits just because they can't afford to pay into the system. GUILT OR INNOCENSE, RIGHT OR WRONG have NOTHING to do with our current legal system.

It is a total fraud.

That's all there is to it.

We'd do just as well to abolish the entire legal system and use 'street' justice. It would, in fact, be a whole lot more just.

 

[Hum Dinger]

So what you are suggesting is that the one aspect of the justice system in which the individual has some choice should also be taken over by the government?

Justice should not be a product of choice.

So what is your solution? For all defense lawyers to work for the government and be assigned by random pool? There would still be differences in quality of representation because there is no way to guarantee that each of of them think the same way and have the same level of competency.

My primary solution is judicial reform. The system should be reformed in such a way that the judges do not allow the quality of the attorneys to influence the outcome of any litigation. Get them on a leash and stop allowing attorneys to dominate the court system.


My secondary solution would be to socialize and systematize all legal services of all types.

 

[WillowTree]

Look folks, about 15 years ago I broke up a fist fight. I did not strike anyone. The person who had started the fight and who was losing it filed a complaint with the police which resulted in myself and the other guy who actually was in the fight getting arrested.

I hired a VERY expensive Mahatten attorney to represent me (and no, my father did not pay for it). The only thing he did, besides filing the appropriate papers, was to announce the name of his law firm to the court and then declare that I was not guilty.

The judge then dismissed the case.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had only a court appointed attorney, I would have gone to prison.

The simple fact is: guilt or innocence had NOTHING to do with the outcome. The justice system is mindless. The only thing that mattered was the fact that I had paid the BIG BUCKS into the system. That is the ONLY thing that influenced the outcome.

It should be that all the wingnuts, who complain about crime being so bad and to support the conservative interpertation of the Constitution, should be the first to hate the current legal system. It is a total fraud and it is the main cause of continued crime in our society.


Of course wingnuts usually believe that arrest equals guilt - in contradiction to the Constitution.

Getting arrested when your innocent - when in fact all you did was help maintain the peace because there were no police there - is a fucking nightmare.

Fortunately, I could afford to buy into the system. Many people can't.

So tens of thousands of innocent people go to prison or lose lawsuits just because they can't afford to pay into the system. GUILT OR INNOCENSE, RIGHT OR WRONG have NOTHING to do with our current legal system.

It is a total fraud.

That's all there is to it.

We'd do just as well to abolish the entire legal system and use 'street' justice. It would, in fact, be a whole lot more just.

You are right about that. It's not about guilt or innocence. It's certainly not about truth.. It's about winning.. which takes me back to my original point.. who runs this nefarious system?

 

[Hum Dinger]

look folks, about 15 years ago i broke up a fist fight. I did not strike anyone. The person who had started the fight and who was losing it filed a complaint with the police which resulted in myself and the other guy who actually was in the fight getting arrested.

I hired a very expensive mahatten attorney to represent me (and no, my father did not pay for it). The only thing he did, besides filing the appropriate papers, was to announce the name of his law firm to the court and then declare that i was not guilty.

The judge then dismissed the case.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if i had only a court appointed attorney, i would have gone to prison.

The simple fact is: Guilt or innocence had nothing to do with the outcome. The justice system is mindless. The only thing that mattered was the fact that i had paid the big bucks into the system. That is the only thing that influenced the outcome.

It should be that all the wingnuts, who complain about crime being so bad and to support the conservative interpertation of the constitution, should be the first to hate the current legal system. It is a total fraud and it is the main cause of continued crime in our society.


Of course wingnuts usually believe that arrest equals guilt - in contradiction to the constitution.

Getting arrested when your innocent - when in fact all you did was help maintain the peace because there were no police there - is a fucking nightmare.

Fortunately, i could afford to buy into the system. Many people can't.

So tens of thousands of innocent people go to prison or lose lawsuits just because they can't afford to pay into the system. Guilt or innocense, right or wrong have nothing to do with our current legal system.

It is a total fraud.

That's all there is to it.

We'd do just as well to abolish the entire legal system and use 'street' justice. It would, in fact, be a whole lot more just.

you are right about that. It's not about guilt or innocence. It's certainly not about truth.. It's about winning.. Which takes me back to my original point.. Who runs this nefarious system?

you do.

 

[Capitalist]

So at who's expense would the better lawyers be provided.

 

[del]

shouldn't all people get a level playing field when in court? how can you claim the justice system is even worth upholding when rich people get better lawyers with connections to judges and DAs and then get let free or minimal punishment, while a poor person doing the same thing would spend years or their entire life in jail?

considering everything else is in the justice process is run by the government, except for jails which just hold already processed people, why can't trial lawyers work for hte government and each person be assigned a lawyer from a random pool?

Because we don't live-in a communist country...yet.

so police, judges, government prosecutors, law makers, etc being run and paid for by the government is okay, but putting lawyers in that mix would suddenly make us communists?

so your contention is that all public defenders are incompetent?

 

[syrenn]

Because we don't live-in a communist country...yet.

so police, judges, government prosecutors, law makers, etc being run and paid for by the government is okay, but putting lawyers in that mix would suddenly make us communists?

so your contention is that all public defenders are incompetent?

Overworked with all of the illegals in the system they have to represent?

 

[Hum Dinger]

So at who's expense would the better lawyers be provided.

It isn't really about better lawyers. It's about better judges and a better judicial system - one that doesn't allow the quality of a lawyer to influence the outcome. It's about justice being the final result.

Lawyers usually do the best for their clients - guity or not, while grossly overcharging for their services.

The fact is, if a lawyer is more capable or less capable, or if he/she is better politically positioned, it influences the out come greatly.

Judges shouldn't allow it - but they do.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Because we don't live-in a communist country...yet.

so police, judges, government prosecutors, law makers, etc being run and paid for by the government is okay, but putting lawyers in that mix would suddenly make us communists?

so your contention is that all public defenders are incompetent?

Incompetent? Well, no. Overworked, unable to devote the time and above all relaively inexpericenced when compared to private lawyers.

On the otherhand prosecuting attorneys are also relatively overworked, unable to devote the time and relatively inexperienced also.

Any lawyer that can (with a few exceptions) is going to go into private practice ASAP.

Being a public defender or a prosecuting attorney is usually a position for beginners in the legal world.

Neither prosecuting attorneys or public defenders have the finacial motivation to to win that private attorneys have. What's more is, if it didn't pay for people to hire private attorneys, then private attorneys would become obsolete - the whole legal industry would be kaput, so the public defenders and prosecutors WANT to lose to private attorneys - their professional future depends on it.

Do you all really think that the outcome of the O.J. Simpson trial would have been the same if he had a public defender?

 

[Big Fitz]

No one has a right to equality of outcome. They do have the right to being treated equal under the law. If they want a good lawyer, they must find a way to pay for it. To make sure that everyone ends up with the same is to make laws preferential to some, and unfair to others. This does nothing but breed resentment from those who are discriminated against by the law towards that those who undeservedly benefit.

What is most often claimed is the 'charity card' or 'pity card'. Oh poor them. They don't have 'x'. Won't someone please give them 'x'? That's a laudable sentiment. It really is. But the calling is on the person's heart who felt it. Instead of following the typical liberal model, (which consists of getting mad that nobody else cares about the topic like they do and then complain till someone gives in, and gives just to shut them up), they should instead act on this sensation of charity and give from their own pocket themselves.

Then the excuse comes out of "well I can't afford to do this, but if we all club in, we can do this not just for that poor person but for others in the same position." They make this appeal to others and some give in, others tell them to sod off. Of course, any amount they receive is never enough either. There is always more to do, others to help. Now they've gained a sense of being a 'do-gooder' with the entitlement to go around judging what needs to be fixed, and complaining that not enough give in to their sense of moral outrage that an inequality exists.

Now the fun REALLY begins. Before, people gave because it was easier to placate them. This inspired the lib to demand more. And with luck enlisted others who had enough or felt the draw on their heart to give as well. But now, darn it, there's more to do, and nobody else gives a rats ass. So you know what? They need to be FORCED to do the right thing! Yeah! That's it. They won't do it willingly, so we have to force them. What good is government if they won't make people do what I think is good. So a law is crafted, drafted, laughed at and then stunningly passed when nobody cared enough to stop it or worse, was scared to stand against it for fear of losing votes because the loudest people was the minority who directly benefited financially OR emotionally from it's passage.

So now the government gets the privileged to pick the pockets of unwilling citizens and give that ill gained money to those who have falsely come to the conclusion their caring for someone they feel disadvantaged makes them better than others, and therefore qualified to decide what is good, and how others must act. With this moral elitism overflowing from their minds, they realize that they've reached their goal (if lucky) or they need MORE money to complete it.

Now we come to the conclusion. Their elite status of course warrants them special perks and placement in society. They have gained the right to steal from their fellow man to make themselves feel better, while really suffering no loss for themselves. But if they have solved the problem... now what? They can't let all this good flow and momentum go to waste.

So who else needs help? Won't SOMEBODY please help?

And the cycle begins again.

You need to take your hands out of other people's pockets, realize you have no right to give anything except what you own, quit whining about the behavior of others and live your own life instead of meddling in the lives of others. If you can't do this... someone needs to stop you. Permanently if necessary to save the rest of the world from your rationalized evil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look folks, about 15 years ago I broke up a fist fight. I did not strike anyone. The person who had started the fight and who was losing it filed a complaint with the police which resulted in myself and the other guy who actually was in the fight getting arrested.

I hired a VERY expensive Mahatten attorney to represent me (and no, my father did not pay for it). The only thing he did, besides filing the appropriate papers, was to announce the name of his law firm to the court and then declare that I was not guilty.

The judge then dismissed the case.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had only a court appointed attorney, I would have gone to prison.

The simple fact is: guilt or innocence had NOTHING to do with the outcome. The justice system is mindless. The only thing that mattered was the fact that I had paid the BIG BUCKS into the system. That is the ONLY thing that influenced the outcome.

It should be that all the wingnuts, who complain about crime being so bad and to support the conservative interpertation of the Constitution, should be the first to hate the current legal system. It is a total fraud and it is the main cause of continued crime in our society.


Of course wingnuts usually believe that arrest equals guilt - in contradiction to the Constitution.

Getting arrested when your innocent - when in fact all you did was help maintain the peace because there were no police there - is a fucking nightmare.

Fortunately, I could afford to buy into the system. Many people can't.

So tens of thousands of innocent people go to prison or lose lawsuits just because they can't afford to pay into the system. GUILT OR INNOCENSE, RIGHT OR WRONG have NOTHING to do with our current legal system.

It is a total fraud.

That's all there is to it.

We'd do just as well to abolish the entire legal system and use 'street' justice. It would, in fact, be a whole lot more just.

Your lawyer must have loved you. If he had known that you were that gullible he would have milked you for months.

Thee is no way a first time offender would go to prison for a simple assault charge in the US. The prisins and jails are too full of the real criminals, drug users who know that the system will take care of them for as long as they need, as long as they are willing to play the reform card that society loves to hear. You would have got the same result with a public defender you did with that high priced lawyer because the justice system is actually pretty good at meting out equal justice for minor offenses.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Look folks, about 15 years ago I broke up a fist fight. I did not strike anyone. The person who had started the fight and who was losing it filed a complaint with the police which resulted in myself and the other guy who actually was in the fight getting arrested.

I hired a VERY expensive Mahatten attorney to represent me (and no, my father did not pay for it). The only thing he did, besides filing the appropriate papers, was to announce the name of his law firm to the court and then declare that I was not guilty.

The judge then dismissed the case.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had only a court appointed attorney, I would have gone to prison.

The simple fact is: guilt or innocence had NOTHING to do with the outcome. The justice system is mindless. The only thing that mattered was the fact that I had paid the BIG BUCKS into the system. That is the ONLY thing that influenced the outcome.

It should be that all the wingnuts, who complain about crime being so bad and to support the conservative interpertation of the Constitution, should be the first to hate the current legal system. It is a total fraud and it is the main cause of continued crime in our society.


Of course wingnuts usually believe that arrest equals guilt - in contradiction to the Constitution.

Getting arrested when your innocent - when in fact all you did was help maintain the peace because there were no police there - is a fucking nightmare.

Fortunately, I could afford to buy into the system. Many people can't.

So tens of thousands of innocent people go to prison or lose lawsuits just because they can't afford to pay into the system. GUILT OR INNOCENSE, RIGHT OR WRONG have NOTHING to do with our current legal system.

It is a total fraud.

That's all there is to it.

We'd do just as well to abolish the entire legal system and use 'street' justice. It would, in fact, be a whole lot more just.

Your lawyer must have loved you. If he had known that you were that gullible he would have milked you for months.

Thee is no way a first time offender would go to prison for a simple assault charge in the US. The prisins and jails are too full of the real criminals, drug users who know that the system will take care of them for as long as they need, as long as they are willing to play the reform card that society loves to hear. You would have got the same result with a public defender you did with that high priced lawyer because the justice system is actually pretty good at meting out equal justice for minor offenses.

Oh great! Then I would have been found guity, given community service and I'd have a conviction on my record that would have ruined all future jobs opportunities.

That's supposed to be a consolation.

How about this:

People who have commited a crime are found guilty, people who have not commited a crime are quickly found innocent. Who the lawyer is shouldn't matter. Unfortunately it does.

But you are right, it usually would a typical lawyer trick to draw the case out for as long as possible to suck all the money he possibly could out of me - while pretending to 'represent me'.

I was lucky - or possible they came to the conclusion that continuing to screw me wasn't in their best interests.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look folks, about 15 years ago I broke up a fist fight. I did not strike anyone. The person who had started the fight and who was losing it filed a complaint with the police which resulted in myself and the other guy who actually was in the fight getting arrested.

I hired a VERY expensive Mahatten attorney to represent me (and no, my father did not pay for it). The only thing he did, besides filing the appropriate papers, was to announce the name of his law firm to the court and then declare that I was not guilty.

The judge then dismissed the case.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if I had only a court appointed attorney, I would have gone to prison.

The simple fact is: guilt or innocence had NOTHING to do with the outcome. The justice system is mindless. The only thing that mattered was the fact that I had paid the BIG BUCKS into the system. That is the ONLY thing that influenced the outcome.

It should be that all the wingnuts, who complain about crime being so bad and to support the conservative interpertation of the Constitution, should be the first to hate the current legal system. It is a total fraud and it is the main cause of continued crime in our society.


Of course wingnuts usually believe that arrest equals guilt - in contradiction to the Constitution.

Getting arrested when your innocent - when in fact all you did was help maintain the peace because there were no police there - is a fucking nightmare.

Fortunately, I could afford to buy into the system. Many people can't.

So tens of thousands of innocent people go to prison or lose lawsuits just because they can't afford to pay into the system. GUILT OR INNOCENSE, RIGHT OR WRONG have NOTHING to do with our current legal system.

It is a total fraud.

That's all there is to it.

We'd do just as well to abolish the entire legal system and use 'street' justice. It would, in fact, be a whole lot more just.

Your lawyer must have loved you. If he had known that you were that gullible he would have milked you for months.

Thee is no way a first time offender would go to prison for a simple assault charge in the US. The prisins and jails are too full of the real criminals, drug users who know that the system will take care of them for as long as they need, as long as they are willing to play the reform card that society loves to hear. You would have got the same result with a public defender you did with that high priced lawyer because the justice system is actually pretty good at meting out equal justice for minor offenses.

Oh great! Then I would have been found guity, given community service and I'd have a conviction on my record that would have ruined all future jobs opportunities.

That's supposed to be a consolation.

How about this:

People who have commited a crime are found guilty, people who have not commited a crime are quickly found innocent. Who the lawyer is shouldn't matter. Unfortunately it does.

But you are right, it usually would a typical lawyer trick to draw the case out for as long as possible to suck all the money he possibly could out of me - while pretending to 'represent me'.

I was lucky - or possible they came to the conclusion that continuing to screw me wasn't in their best interests.

Are you trying to claim white privileged here? That if you were black you would automatically have gone to prison?

Simple assault is a misdemeanor in NY. Even if you had the worst attorney in the world the worst that would have happened would have been the equivalent of a traffic ticket, and would not have resulted in jail time unless you managed to totally piss off the judge. That lawyer must have seen you coming. How much did he charge you to waste your money like that? Are you interested in buying one of those bridges you see around NY? I can give you a good deal.

 

[Avatar4321]

I can guarentee you that just because a lawyer is high priced, does not mean he is "better". In fact, I've seen a lot of crappy lawyers who charge alot of money.

 

[Avatar4321]

Oh great! Then I would have been found guity, given community service and I'd have a conviction on my record that would have ruined all future jobs opportunities.

That's supposed to be a consolation.

How about this:

People who have commited a crime are found guilty, people who have not commited a crime are quickly found innocent. Who the lawyer is shouldn't matter. Unfortunately it does.

But you are right, it usually would a typical lawyer trick to draw the case out for as long as possible to suck all the money he possibly could out of me - while pretending to 'represent me'.

I was lucky - or possible they came to the conclusion that continuing to screw me wasn't in their best interests.

Actually, people are falsely accused and are found guilty despite being innocent all the time.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

giving everyone equal justice when crimes are commited or not is communism?

One Question:

When some Punk beats an Old Lady half to death to take her Pocket Book with $20.00 in it and the Lady is left Crippled and in Pain for the rest of her life, then the Punk gets off with 30 days in Jail, where the Hell is Equal Justice then?

So until you have a rational answer on Victims Rights, then maybe some of us might want to hear your whinny criminals deserve the best lawyers BS

Your example is fiction and has never happened.

This kind of stuff happens all the time, what about the football player who got less than a year for killing someone while driving drunk, what about the drive by shooter earlier this year who go 7 years for killing and innocent child, I could do on and on.

You are from GA, listen tho the Atlanta News or Pickup the AGC, I cannot believ you think this stuff does not happen all too often!

 

[editec]

shouldn't all people get a level playing field when in court? how can you claim the justice system is even worth upholding when rich people get better lawyers with connections to judges and DAs and then get let free or minimal punishment, while a poor person doing the same thing would spend years or their entire life in jail?

considering everything else is in the justice process is run by the government, except for jails which just hold already processed people, why can't trial lawyers work for hte government and each person be assigned a lawyer from a random pool?

Perfectly reasonable question, I suppose.

Our criminal justice system is correctly named, without doubt.

 

[Gatekeeper]

I think I would call it a Legal System since it is NOT "JUST"(Justice) to all that are summoned into it. The term "Justice System" is a joke.

 

[jillian]

This kind of stuff happens all the time, what about the football player who got less than a year for killing someone while driving drunk, what about the drive by shooter earlier this year who go 7 years for killing and innocent child, I could do on and on.

You are from GA, listen tho the Atlanta News or Pickup the AGC, I cannot believ you think this stuff does not happen all too often!

no. "stuff" like that does not happen all the time. and sometimes people go to jail for life for crimes they don't commit. the system is imperfect because people are imperfect.

feel free to link examples... and for every one you link, i'll find one where an innocent person was jailed for decades because of overzealous prosecutors, fallability of eyewitness testimony, overly angry juries and deficits in our technology.

 

[syrenn]

I think I would call it a Legal System since it is NOT "JUST"(Justice) to all that are summoned into it. The term "Justice System" is a joke.

No Fucking Shit!