h a l f b a k e r yWhy not imagine it in a way that works?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Let's face it: When you're watching a trial, you know each party's lawyer is saying and doing anything and everything she can to win her client's case.
Instead, why not have each party's lawyer try to LOSE the case? That way, they'd be free to share every realistic, incriminating opinion they had,
and you wouldn't think they were just trying to manipulate everybody. Lawyers might actually get a reputation for honesty and integrity. Then the world would promptly explode.
Football Follies
http://www.snopes.c...acture/football.htm
For Redbird: a sporting event where both teams were trying to lose... [Uncle Nutsy, Jul 26 2000, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
It would be a lot more popular if the lawyers tried to incriminate each other instead... |
|
| |
And while we're about it, how about a sporting event in which both teams are trying to lose? Makes as much sense, but it might be amusing to watch. |
|
| |
I'm all for the idea, but I have issue with one statement: |
|
| |
"You know each party's lawyer is saying and doing anything and everthing she can to win her client's case." |
|
| |
I think, in reality, that the lawyers are saying and doing anything they can to make more money from the clients. |
|
| |
If they don't think the client will pay them for a long proceeding, then they'll intentionally lose the case to cut it short. (All personal experience with 3 divorce lawyers.)| — | eagle,
Jul 26 2000, last modified Jul 28 2000 |
|
|
| |
Eagle, you can get disbarred for doing something like that. |
|
| |
They have a nice way of intentionally losing a case: They call it "Failed pre-trial negotiations; We'd better concede!" |
|
| |
<rant>My wife's ex-husband is a pickle-dink real estate lawyer who got the two of them in huge debt because he didn't like paying taxes. Each of our three lawyers found the ex to be so irrational that they advised us to not only drop our suit, but to accept half the debt -- which would have forced us into bankruptcy (sp?) One lawyer even said, "I think you should declare bankruptcy. I just want to make sure you feel OK about it." I honestly feel that if we had enough money to pay them to actually go to court to defend us, they would have done so. But knowing that the ex would have made it a long trial -- they gave up WAY too easily. We eventually represented ourselves, and ended up owing NONE of the debt.</rant> |
|
| |
Also, check out the success rate of legal-aid represented cases. The lawyers are forced to donate their very expensive time as part of their membership with the law society. They resent the work, and do a quickie, "let's get out of the courtroom" job if they can get away with it. |
|
| |
Compare it to OJ Simpson and his very expensive, "let's stay in the courtroom for a full year" lawyers. |
|
| |
In one of Frank Herberts books, either "The Dosadi Experiment", or possibly "Whipping Star", he describes a race of frog-like creatures who are the universe's greatest lawyers. In their legal system, the winning lawyer is torn to peices by the everybody in the courtroom: this ensures that only the highest principles - the ones worth dying for - are argued (and discourages nuisance lawsuits I expect). |
|
| |
I like the idea. It would get downright funny in the death penalty phase of a murder trial. "My client is a scumbag with absolutely no redeeming social value. He shouldn't just get the death penalty. He should be TORTURED! Yeah! Break out the thumbscrews...." |
|
| |
Then again, the idea also reminds me of Al Pacino's climactic speech in "And Justice For All." |
|
| |
Redbird: You don't quite get it. Someone would still win, and someone lose. This way, though, the truth would quickly emerge and trials would take much less time. |
|
| |
Doesn't Justice sound a bit like Just Is. |
|
| |
Justice is a barbaric concept. It implies that life can and should be made "fair". It's not fair that a person can be murdered. Hurting the murderer doesn't make it any more fair. "fair" is bullshit. |
|
| |
If the goal is to prevent others from committing the crime don't call it justice because it's not about being just -- it's about deterrence. If the goal is to punish call it what it is: revenge. If it's about making sure a person doesn't do that again call it reform. Do what you're going to do but for Goddess' sake don't pretend you're doing something good unless you're doing something good. Hurting someone for revenge is not good. |
|
| |