Bill cosby guilty

[Themius]

They aren't being unethical here though...

You don't seem to be able to think this problem through clearly.

Here:

"Is it ethical for a lawyer to fight to free a person they know is guilty, simply because it is part of their job? Knowing that the act they're guilty of is horribly unethical?

Universalised you could therefore say "It is ethical to fight for people to not be punished for committing unethical acts"

Now consider:

In such a world where it is ethical to fight for people to not be punished for unethical crimes that people are 100% guilty of would mean there is no proper justice. The intended world we live in expects that people will be punished for their crimes, not that their crimes will go unpunished if a third actor fights to say "yes it is unethical, but this technicality though." Another example in this world says it is ethical for a confessed murderer to get off of a crime due to a technicality, and the lawyer who knows they're guilty without a doubt can't be ethical since they released a known murderer back to the streets without their punishment terms being met since not they're suddenly deemed not able to the charged This is not the type of people that's expected...

Or let's try another way.

Is it ethical for lawyers to fight for people they know are guilty and put them back on the streets simply because it is part of their job? Universlaisd, the lawyers job is for their client and to do whatever is best for their client. In this same vein it is ethical for actors within a company to do whatever they can that's in the best interest of their client/business

In such a world it would be ethical to dump chemicals in lakes near residences because it is in the best interest of the business and the greater societal harms are not the concerns of the person doing whatever is best for the business

Another way to look at it...

In such a world punishment for crimes can be argued out even when the person is 100% guilty and says they are, if it is part of one's job, not related to guilt. This creates a contradiction where society expects people to be punished for crimes, not freed because of individual relationships with clients.....

- - - Updated - - -

You're conflating the legality of the lawyer's situation with being ethical. Yes, it is what the lawyers are paid to do and it may also very well be saving their own hides from being disbarred. But will never be ethical or morally right to get a rapist out of prison. Just because its your job or the law demands it doesn't automatically make it ethical.

Like my scenario in response to him proves.

It is ethical for a business to dump chemicals in lakes if it is in the interest of the business and the agent working for the business makes that decision. There's nothing "unethical" about that action in such a world where all that matters are the clients and what the professional can do to benefit the client.

Society be damned.

People often think "but legal so what prob?" as if that's where it ends

[Egomaniac]

You don't seem to be able to think this problem through clearly.

Here:

"Is it ethical for a lawyer to fight to free a person they know is guilty, simply because it is part of their job? Knowing that the act they're guilty of is horribly unethical?

Universalised you could therefore say "It is ethical to fight for people to not be punished for committing unethical acts"

Now consider:

In such a world where it is ethical to fight for people to not be punished for unethical crimes that people are 100% guilty of would mean there is no proper justice. The intended world we live in expects that people will be punished for their crimes, not that their crimes will go unpunished if a third actor fights to say "yes it is unethical, but this technicality though." Another example in this world says it is ethical for a confessed murderer to get off of a crime due to a technicality, and the lawyer who knows they're guilty without a doubt can't be ethical since they released a known murderer back to the streets without their punishment terms being met since not they're suddenly deemed not able to the charged This is not the type of people that's expected...

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/c...FourthEdition/

(d) Defense counsel is the client’s professional representative, not the client’s alter-ego. Defense counsel should act zealously within the bounds of the law and standards on behalf of their clients, but have no duty to, and may not, execute any directive of the client which violates the law or such standards. In representing a client, defense counsel may engage in a good faith challenge to the validity of such laws or standards if done openly.

(f) Defense counsel should be knowledgeable about, and consider, alternatives to prosecution or conviction that may be applicable in individual cases, and communicate them to the client. Defense counsel should be available to assist other groups in the community in addressing problems that lead to, or result from, criminal activity or perceived flaws in the criminal justice system.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...is-guilty.html

Defense attorneys are ethically bound to zealously represent all clients, those whom they think will be justly found guilty as well as those whom they think are factually innocent. (See Canon 7, ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility.) A vigorous defense is necessary to protect the innocent and to ensure that judges and citizens—and not the police—have the ultimate power to decide who is guilty of a crime.

The lawyers did their job to the best of their ability. Unless you can show they did something that violates the law or legal standards... they are not the ones to be blamed for what has transpired here. Blame the prosecutor that made the immunity deal in the first place, blame the prosecutor that ignored that deal, and/or, blame the judge that agreed with the defense's case.

[PACOX]

I know they are doing what they are paid to do. But getting a rapist out of prison just because its your job isn't exactly an excuse for me.

Unless they have a habit of defending scumbags, its more up upholding the justice system. In a moral and just system everyone a fair trial. Even if the person was caught in 4K, even if that person is a piece of crap. Its not to make things easier for them but to try to be as fair as possible with everyone that comes before a bench, the guilty, innocent, and everything in between.

Some lawyers defend the guilty because they they are paid by their client to get them off. Others defend the guilty to make sure the justice system is held to a particular standard and the sentence served is appropiate. The system is retributive enough.

[Themius]

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/c...FourthEdition/





https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...is-guilty.html



The lawyers did their job to the best of their ability. Unless you can show they did something that violates the law or legal standards... they are not the ones to be blamed for what has transpired here. Blame the prosecutor that made the immunity deal in the first place, blame the prosecutor that ignored that deal, and/or, blame the judge that agreed with the defense's case.

So it is ethical for an agent of company A to dump chemicals in a lake in order to zealously defend the company’s motives of profit. We get it.

You don’t care about the broader societal issues.

[Egomaniac]

So it is ethical for an agent of company A to dump chemicals in a lake in order to zealously defend the company’s motives of profit. We get it.

Dumping chemicals like that would be illegal...so no, that would not be ethical either.

These lawyers did not "dump chemicals in a lake". They used a legal tactic to secure the release of their client.

You don’t care about the broader societal issues.

I very much care about societal issues. One of those societal issues is that everyone deserves a fair trial with competent legal council.

And before you say one more god damn word about how I don't care about societal issues...take a scroll through my previous posts today in this thread. I am sickened by the fact that Bill Cosby is free...but I don't blame his lawyers for doing their jobs. I blame the situation that caused that legal technicality to exist.

[Themius]

Dumping chemicals like that would be illegal.




I very much care about societal issues. One of those societal issues is that everyone deserves a fair trial with competent legal council.

And before you say one more god damn word about how I don't care about societal issues...take a scroll through my previous posts today in this thread. I am sickened by the fact that Bill Cosby is free...but I don't blame his lawyers for doing their jobs. I blame the situation that caused that legal technicality to exist.

Is what is or isn’t ethical determined by its legality????

I guess slavery was ethical!

[Egomaniac]

Is what is or isn’t ethical determined by its legality????

I guess slavery was ethical!

Leave that Strawman alone....he's done nothing to you.

[Themius]

Leave that Strawman alone....he's done nothing to you.

You don't seem to know what we are talking about.

The ethics of the act itself. You are the one who is strawmanning here since everyone is speaking of the ethics of the actions and only you are speaking of what the lawyer profession specifically considers

Your own argument derives its authority from legality and a board of professionals and the fact is legality often has little to do with ethics. you can legally do something that is unethical do you care to read the ethic codes? There are precise notes on how legality doesn't mean something is ethical and how it is unethical to use laws to do something that is not ethical.

You don't understand what we are talking about, you have a very poor grasps of this conversation so instead of claiming people are "strawmanning" how about you try to understand what the fuck the conversation is first?

[Egomaniac]

You don't seem to know what we are talking about.

The ethics of the act itself. You are the one who is strawmanning here since everyone is speaking of the ethics of the actions and only you are speaking of what the lawyer profession specifically considers

Your own argument derives its authority from legality and a board of professionals and the fact is legality often has little to do with ethics. you can legally do something that is unethical do you care to read the ethic codes? There are precise mention how legality doesn't mean something is ethical and how it is unethical to use laws to do something that is not ethical.

You don't understand what we are talking about, you have a very poor grasps of this conversation so instead of claiming people are "strawmanning" how about you try to understand what the fuck the conversation is first?

There is nothing fucking "unethical" about a fucking lawyer making a legal fucking argument that effects the fucking release of their fucking client. As his fucking Lawyers...they are doing their jobs...which is to provide the best legal defense possible. If they had learned about this agreement and did not make this case...they would be guilty of malpractice.

If the client were someone you considered to be innocent...you would be praising these lawyers for what you are condemning them for right now. Your hypocrisy is showing.

[Themius]

There is nothing fucking "unethical" about a fucking lawyer making a legal fucking argument that effects the fucking release of their fucking client. As his fucking Lawyers...they are doing their jobs...which is to provide the best legal defense possible. If they had learned about this agreement and did not make this case...they would be guilty of malpractice.

If the client were someone you considered to be innocent...you would be praising these lawyers for what you are condemning them for right now. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Is it ethical to force the eviction of a Native American tribe after hundreds of years on ancestral land because you want to build an oil pipeline? If it is not ethical any person who helps facilitate the unethical act is behaving unethically.

LEGALITY DOESN'T MATTER, LAWYER RESPONSIBILITY DOESN'T MATTER What you are telling me are professional codes as they pertain to the profession that does not deal directly with what is and is not ethical as a societal concern What the fuck are you not understanding here?

"It's my job" isn't an excuse. As I said, Agent A can say "let's dump in this lake because it will save us money it is in the best interest of the company" Is it ethical now because of the relationship?

Your grasps of the ethics here is fucking horribly lacking. You behave as if ethics are all directly tied to a specific job or profession which is a shit argument because then I can universalise that argument WHICH IS OFTEN HOW YOU DO AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS by taking a rule and then applying it universally.

If you have all professions behave in ways to zealously do whatever they can for their client without concern for the wider societal issues then dumping chemicals in lakes, enslaving children, murderering competition, doesn't matter. Because according to you facilitating unethical actions of those who expect you to zealously work in their favour is ethical.

You lost the debate my dude, that's it. Either concede or fucking pivot, but whatever you do... you need to change the way you're attacking this conversation because this ain't it.

[Egomaniac]

BLAH FUCKING BLAH

LEGALITY ALWAYS FUCKING MATTERS

LAWYER REPSONSIBLITY DOES FUCKING MATTER

These are not "Professional Codes". These are the systems that the entire legal sytem is based around.

What you are arguing for is that Bill Cosby's lawyers should have sat on evidence....denying him of his FUCKING right to adequate legal defense. That would be FUCKING UNETHICAL and they would get their FUCKING liscenses to FUCKING Practice Law FUCKING revoked.

BIll Fucking Cosby should fucking die in Prison. I've said that earlier in this thread. I argued against he people that considered him serving almost 3 years as a "win". I Fucking hate the situation that led to him being released....but his FUCKING LAWYERS didn't create that FUCKING SITUATION. I'm not saying you can't be mad about the situation.

- - - Updated - - -

You lost the debate my dude, that's it. Either concede or fucking pivot, but whatever you do... you need to change the way you're attacking this conversation because this ain't it.

My argument is about the ethics of a lawyer sitting on evidence that could release his client. You are talking about the morality of defending someone you consider to be guilty.

But even guilty people deserve the best legal efforts of their defense team.

If you have all professions behave in ways to zealously do whatever they can for their client without concern for the wider societal issues then dumping chemicals in lakes, enslaving children, murderering competition, doesn't matter. Because according to you facilitating unethical actions of those who expect you to zealously work in their favour is ethical.

Don't you think the right to a fair trial with adequate legal defense is a "wider societal issue", my dude?

And like i said...you don't have a problem with their supposed "unethical actions"...if they used the same actions to free an innocent man...you'd be cheering them on.

[Themius]

LEGALITY ALWAYS FUCKING MATTERS

LAWYER REPSONSIBLITY DOES FUCKING MATTER

These are not "Professional Codes". These are the systems that the entire legal sytem is based around.

What you are arguing for is that Bill Cosby's lawyers should have sat on evidence....denying him of his FUCKING right to adequate legal defense. That would be FUCKING UNETHICAL and they would get their FUCKING liscenses to FUCKING Practice Law FUCKING revoked.

BIll Fucking Cosby should fucking die in Prison. I've said that earlier in this thread. I argued against he people that considered him serving almost 3 years as a "win". I Fucking hate the situation that led to him being released....but his FUCKING LAWYERS didn't create that FUCKING SITUATION. I'm not saying you can't be mad about the situation.

- - - Updated - - -



My argument is about the ethics of a lawyer sitting on evidence that could release his client. You are talking about the morality of defending someone you consider to be guilty.

But even guilty people deserve the best legal efforts of their defense team.

Here's a little snippet that should get the idea across.

The fact that something is legal doesn’t make it ethical. You might think it’s obvious, but it’s not, as evidenced by the fact that a former student recently told me that his Finance professor explicitly told him that if something is legal, it’s ethical…full stop. Of course, the student — my student — knew better, and related the story to me while rolling his eyes.

So let’s make the case explicitly, and explain why legality doesn’t determine ethics.

First, we can proceed by enumerating a few counter-examples:

Most kinds of lying are perfectly legal, but lying is generally recognized as being unethical;
Breaking promises is generally legal, but is widely thought of as unethical;
Cheating on your husband or wife or boyfriend or girlfriend is legal, but unethical, though the rule against it is perhaps more honoured in the breach;
…and so on.

[Egomaniac]

Here's a little snippet that should get the idea across.

Sitting on evidence that would free your client is also unethical


Why don't you tell me exactly what you think was "unethical" about their actions? Would you condemn them for using the same actions if they had freeed someone you think is innocent?

[Kellhound]

Here's a little snippet that should get the idea across.

It is unethical for a lawyer to not fight for their client with every legal means available to them. It is what keeps some semblance of checks and balances in out judicial system.

[Azadina]

"Murderer": My lawyer dude Themius, this evidence here proves I didn't commit the murders I was convinced of.

Themius: you're murderer, it's unethical to defend you with any evidence. Kthxbai, keep enjoying jail!

Glad I don't live in a world where Themius sets the rules.

[josykay]

What kind of shitty laywer offers immunity for prosecution in exchange of testimony in a civil process?

[Masark]

What kind of shitty laywer offers immunity for prosecution in exchange of testimony in a civil process?

The kind of lawyer that willingly defends trump from impeachment.

[Adamas102]

It is ethical for a business to dump chemicals in lakes if it is in the interest of the business and the agent working for the business makes that decision. There's nothing "unethical" about that action in such a world where all that matters are the clients and what the professional can do to benefit the client.

People often think "but legal so what prob?" as if that's where it ends

This is a gross misunderstanding of the legal system and the role that lawyers play in it.

It's not just a job, like being an employee at some company. The idea that EVERYONE is entitled to representation is a core principle of our entire legal system. That's the role that lawyers fill. Conflating the ethical or moral standing of the lawyer with that of the defendant is absurd. It is absolutely ethical for a lawyer to mount the best defense they can even for a client they know is legally in the wrong, because without that expectation there would be no so such thing as a fair trial.

Our legal system might have a lot of flaws, but this principle is not one of them.

[Masark]

It is absolutely ethical for a lawyer to mount the best defense they can even for a client they know is legally in the wrong, because without that expectation there would be no so such thing as a fair trial.

Sure, that's the norm in every adversarial system of law.

But the USA has some uniquely whacked out standards for what constitutes that.

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post53133210

[tehealadin]

Glad I don't live in a world where Themius sets the rules.

You are talking about the dude who in another thread not too long ago, argued that so long as something was legal it was ethical. Has a hard time being consistent with arguments.