|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 7, 2006 0:19:03 GMT -5
Another question. If you know the person you are representing is guilty of cold blooded murder, how could you possibly defend this criminal in a court of law, if evidence from the crime scene and statements by parties involved all appear that person is guilty, and if you, yourself, believe that person is guilty, how can you attempt to sway the jury into finding this person not guilty? That would be tainting, would it not?  Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 7, 2006 23:05:01 GMT -5
Another question. If you know the person you are representing is guilty of cold blooded murder, how could you possibly defend this criminal in a court of law, if evidence from the crime scene and statements by parties involved all appear that person is guilty, and if you, yourself, believe that person is guilty, how can you attempt to sway the jury into finding this person not guilty? That would be tainting, would it not? Tonya It would not. By tainting, I think most people believe it to mean improperly influencing a jury. A lawyer making an argument on the evidence is merely presenting her side of the case as she should. Yours is the age old question of how a lawyer can defend a client whom he knows is guilty. I've given this lecture so many times that it tires me. But I'll give you the quick version. Ours is an adversary system. We take it upon faith that the best way to arrive at a just result is to have both sides present evidence and argue for their respective case. Fundamental to our system is the notion (which I'm sure I've mentioned here before) that the government must prove a person's guilt by admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before it can send that person to prison. Now, who is it that stands in the way of the government sending this person to prison on less? The defense lawyer. Even if he knows his client committed the act in question, he has a duty to ensure that no ill-gotten evidence is admitted, and that the proof is beyond any reasonable doubt. Do you really want a system where the lawyers sell out their clients (even known guilty ones)? I don't think so. Society can handle the occasional guilty person going free. What we cannot long endure is a justice system that isn't just. |
|
|
|
Post by Goddess on Mar 8, 2006 10:14:48 GMT -5
Amen, Reason. I absolutely agree.
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 8, 2006 10:44:27 GMT -5
Goddess,
Did you know your boss is mad at me? (She's not too high up on my favorites list these days, either).
|
|
|
|
Post by Goddess on Mar 8, 2006 23:10:26 GMT -5
Nope. I'm afraid to ask what's going on.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 8, 2006 23:18:53 GMT -5
Another question. If you know the person you are representing is guilty of cold blooded murder, how could you possibly defend this criminal in a court of law, if evidence from the crime scene and statements by parties involved all appear that person is guilty, and if you, yourself, believe that person is guilty, how can you attempt to sway the jury into finding this person not guilty? That would be tainting, would it not? Tonya It would not. By tainting, I think most people believe it to mean improperly influencing a jury. A lawyer making an argument on the evidence is merely presenting her side of the case as she should. Yours is the age old question of how a lawyer can defend a client whom he knows is guilty. I've given this lecture so many times that it tires me. But I'll give you the quick version. Ours is an adversary system. We take it upon faith that the best way to arrive at a just result is to have both sides present evidence and argue for their respective case. Fundamental to our system is the notion (which I'm sure I've mentioned here before) that the government must prove a person's guilt by admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before it can send that person to prison. Now, who is it that stands in the way of the government sending this person to prison on less? The defense lawyer. Even if he knows his client committed the act in question, he has a duty to ensure that no ill-gotten evidence is admitted, and that the proof is beyond any reasonable doubt. Do you really want a system where the lawyers sell out their clients (even known guilty ones)? I don't think so. Society can handle the occasional guilty person going free. What we cannot long endure is a justice system that isn't just. Well put, Reason. No arguments. 
Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by Calcasieu on Mar 9, 2006 3:27:32 GMT -5
Well put, Reason. No arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 9, 2006 19:49:41 GMT -5
Well put, Reason. No arguments. I didn't say I agreed with the process - quite frankly - it sucks. The criminals often win, thanks to stellar defense attorneys, sad for the victims.  Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 10, 2006 1:46:58 GMT -5
Can you think of a better process? What changes do you suggest?
|
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 10, 2006 19:18:56 GMT -5
Can you think of a better process? What changes do you suggest? Step 1. Allow more evidence into the trial - more background on the accused should be admissible. Step 2. Don't delay the trial for a 1 1/2 years because the defense attorneys are scrambling for a way out for their client. That's a BULLSHIT loophole! Step 3. Longer parole possibility for the accused.
Tonya |
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 10, 2006 20:03:56 GMT -5
Should evidence that is not relevant to the issue of whether the defendant committed the crime be admitted?
You suggest allowing more background on the defendant. Are you referring to prior crimes of the defendant? This would suggest that you feel that having committed a crime before means that it is likely that he/she committed the one for which he/she is charged. Is this what you want?
Few cases are continued for the one-and-a-half-years of which you speak. Major cases such as the X-Box murders sometimes are. I won't try to refute that defense attorneys scramble for a way out for their clients--that's exactly what they do. However, I will dispute that delays of that length are not merited--I think that if one asked the prosecutors in the Victorino case their opinion, off the record, they would agree that that's a normal amount of time for a case of such complexity, with three defendants and reams of documents and hundreds of pieces of physical evidence which must be tested, disclosed, then retested by the other side. This isn't pot-smoking or a bar fight we're dealing with.
BTW, there is no more parole in Florida. Parole is not available for crimes committed since the mid-'80's.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonya on Mar 10, 2006 20:37:14 GMT -5
[/i][/b][/size]
Tonya
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 11, 2006 8:22:28 GMT -5
In all fairness, every past offense by the victim and the witness will be brought up and argued to the jury as well. Fair?
And why stop at prior crimes having nothing to do with the present allegations. You want anything-goes? Divorces, bankruptcies, socially inappropriate behavior, all of it comes in once you eliminate the relevancy requirement.
I feel sorry for you, Tonya. In your zeal to convict accused people, you would cast aside safeguards society has developed over centuries. That's the danger of being result oriented.
I'm reminded of the words of Sir Thomas More in the famous scene from A Man For All Seasons.
Wife Arrest him!
More For what?
Wife He's dangerous!
Roper For all we know he's a spy!
Daughter Father, that man's bad!
More There's no law against that!
Roper There is, God's law!
More Then let God arrest him!
Wife While you talk he's gone!
More And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
|
|
|
|
Post by reason on Mar 11, 2006 8:30:34 GMT -5
"what about the delays in getting those on death row done away with? More defense attorney intervention....I presume. "
Now you're really showing your ignorance, Tonya, or perhaps your bloodthirstiness. To hear you speak, one would think that defense attorneys merely intervene in the absence of any merit to their arguments or any proper purpose. I know, you don't have much respect for hard-working defense attorneys who are trying like hell to advocate for their clients, to hold the government to the highest standards before it kills people.
There is a process, which takes some time. What's your hurry? Every effort should be made to get it right, because you cannot undo death. Even with all of the procedures in place, which you decry as taking too long, we get it wrong and an innocent person is put to death. But this is merely an inconvenient fact for Tonya.
You are to be pitied.
|
|
|
|
Post by KathyInArkansas on Mar 11, 2006 9:40:24 GMT -5
Tonya,
Don't you recall that a large percentage of people in Illinois who were sentenced to death were later found to be not guilty by DNA and maybe other evidence that was discovered after their sentencing? It is a good thing that they were not taken out and hung immediately after the sentencing, isn't it?
|
|
