Bill cosby guilty

[Aurrora]

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

The kind of lawyer that didn't have a case that could he thought he could win but wanted to give the victim some chance at restitution, which she got to the tune of $3.5 million thanks to Cosby not being able to plead the 5th during his deposition during the civil trial, which was only possible thanks to the prosecutor making the decision for the state not to prosecute Cosby.

[postman1782]

The kind of lawyer that didn't have a case that could he thought he could win but wanted to give the victim some chance at restitution, which she got to the tune of $3.5 million thanks to Cosby not being able to plead the 5th during his deposition during the civil trial, which was only possible thanks to the prosecutor making the decision for the state not to prosecute Cosby.

Was also one of Trump's impeachment defense lawyers. So, not surprising he is a piece of shit.

[Slant]

Hmm, am I hearing people shitting on lawyers for no good reason? Rofl, understand how a proper justice system works and stop whining about ethics.

What you SHOULD be complaining about is that the legislative doesn't ensure that these legal loopholes get eradicated. Stop focusing on the pain, treat the fucking broken bone.

[Themius]

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.

Talk about poor comprehension because I did not.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

The basis is still that a lawyer is immune of ethical analysis of their actions because their only action is to defend their client. When you do an analysis. YOU UNIVERSALISE THE ARGUMENT to fit for everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

"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.

Cosby is in fact guilty and admitted it. Or did you forget that part of the conversation

- - - Updated - - -

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?

If a serial killer without remorse killed 15 people and admitted it but one murder had a deal is it ethical to argue the remorseless killer should be free the other 14 murders be damned? He wasn’t convicted in a single charge if I recall. The evidence isn’t even that he didn’t do what he admitted to.

[Shadowferal]

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

*shrugs*
He lives in NJ and keeps a low profile. So...he's tolerated.

- - - Updated - - -

LEGALITY ALWAYS FUCKING MATTERS
LAWYER REPSONSIBLITY DOES FUCKING MATTER

The two don't always agree, but they do mesh together. If they didn't "Miranda" wouldn't be the law.

[Doctor Amadeus]

If you have enough money and influence you can rape anyone you want and the law itself is only there to keep good people from doing whatever they want and reward the evil. I think that message is pretty loud and clear.

[Themius]

*shrugs*
He lives in NJ and keeps a low profile. So...he's tolerated.

- - - Updated - - -

The two don't always agree, but they do mesh together. If they didn't "Miranda" wouldn't be the law.

I'm not setting any rules though.. frankly this discussion I'm having is about the ethics. That's it really, and ethics goes beyond the specified profession which is just logical.

A lawyer can mount a defence against someone suing for asbestos injuries and it may be found because they smoked twice in their lives they either get no or a low settlement. The job of the lawyer was to defend their client, but was it ethical? Does society consider the reduction of recompense for crimes due to often subjective arguments or misleading arguments ethical? Of course not.

Lawyers often act in legal but unethical ways in the worldview. It is clear to know what society thinks just by all the jokes about lawyers in this country that are essentially known by all through osmosis. So it can be argued that indeed society sees an issue with lawyers, there's something that makes them feel that they skirt around ethical norms we have come to expect.

Not all... but there are major sectors of law that precisely fit "entirely legal defence as was my duty and entirely unethical as decided by society"

Is it ethical to fight and defend a corporation in the specific issue when they intend to privatise another country's natural resources with the express goal to exploit them, often making them far worse of? Society doesn't consider exploitation as ethical so to facilitate exploitation knowingly is also unethical. Now lawyer professional ethics says that the lawyer must fight for this but... is it ethical if you apply this idea to all professions?

Do all agents of all companies who fight for what is best in their particular company now ethical when they decide to dump chemical waste in order to boost profits and shareholder value? Of course not and we know this.

If you consider the important stakeholders here we have Cosby, all his victims, and a broad one (which you usually may not do) societal trust in the law.

Consider how something like this affects each group and it is easy to see how this can be unethical. The conundrum is that the lawyer should mount their best defence, but that opens us up to simply saying all agents who work on behalf of others need not concern themselves with wider societal ethics

[Specialka]

I'm not setting any rules though.. frankly this discussion I'm having is about the ethics. That's it really, and ethics goes beyond the specified profession which is just logical.

A lawyer can mount a defence against someone suing for asbestos injuries and it may be found because they smoked twice in their lives they either get no or a low settlement. The job of the lawyer was to defend their client, but was it ethical? Does society consider the reduction of recompense for crimes due to often subjective arguments or misleading arguments ethical? Of course not.

Lawyers often act in legal but unethical ways in the worldview. It is clear to know what society thinks just by all the jokes about lawyers in this country that are essentially known by all through osmosis. So it can be argued that indeed society sees an issue with lawyers, there's something that makes them feel that they skirt around ethical norms we have come to expect.

Not all... but there are major sectors of law that precisely fit "entirely legal defence as was my duty and entirely unethical as decided by society"

Is it ethical to fight and defend a corporation in the specific issue when they intend to privatise another country's natural resources with the express goal to exploit them, often making them far worse of? Society doesn't consider exploitation as ethical so to facilitate exploitation knowingly is also unethical. Now lawyer professional ethics says that the lawyer must fight for this but... is it ethical if you apply this idea to all professions?

Do all agents of all companies who fight for what is best in their particular company now ethical when they decide to dump chemical waste in order to boost profits and shareholder value? Of course not and we know this.

If you consider the important stakeholders here we have Cosby, all his victims, and a broad one (which you usually may not do) societal trust in the law.

Consider how something like this affects each group and it is easy to see how this can be unethical. The conundrum is that the lawyer should mount their best defence, but that opens us up to simply saying all agents who work on behalf of others need not concern themselves with wider societal ethics

So what do you propose ? You are asking that lawyers should act in an unethical professional way ? So that would mean they would lose their job ?

The issue here is not lawyers, but the legal environment that needs to evolve. The rest will follow.

[zEmini]

Law and Justice in the US is one big joke. If you got the money you can just get away with anything by being able to afford "technicalities" and other bull shit.

[Shadowferal]

Lawyers are ethically bound to defend clients to the best of their ability however they see fit within the constraints of the law.
Their purview isn't adjudication. They aren't judges...a lawyer getting client free because of a technicality is doing his/her job.

[Themius]

So what do you propose ? You are asking that lawyers should act in an unethical professional way ? So that would mean they would lose their job ?

The issue here is not lawyers, but the legal environment that needs to evolve. The rest will follow.

It’s a conundrum as I said. I am not proposing anything. I am simply noting that when an ethical analysis is done there are very clear ethical issues that need to be remedied. Doesn’t mean I have an answer to it.

- - - Updated - - -

Lawyers are ethically bound to defend clients to the best of their ability however they see fit within the constraints of the law.
Their purview isn't adjudication. They aren't judges...a lawyer getting client free because of a technicality is doing his/her job.

Exactly but they don’t function outside of society therefore there actions have a societal ethical impact.

[Ripster42]

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.

Was that the one about scalping?

[Mihalik]

Exactly but they don’t function outside of society therefore there actions have a societal ethical impact.

You really can't see the problem with a lawyer or the justice system in general bending to the will of the Vox Populi?

Lawyers and the courts are supposed to ignore social pressures specifically to protect society from its own worst tendencies.

Judges and sometimes juries on the other hand can and should wield their power to uphold the spirit of the law rather than just the literal letter of the law.

What you're arguing for is literally mob rule.

Your position is so extreme, so illogical, so asinine that you completely and successfully derailed the thread and are forcing people who'd like to see Cosby rot in a jail cell until the sun don't shine into defending his release.

That's because your alternative is between scary and absolutely idiotic.

Again, the issue here was never with his defense. The issue is with the prosecution and the court itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, glad to hear he did not harm any women then if he was found not guilty.

He is quilty. He has raped dozens possibly hundreds of women. He confessed to it.

He was released on a technicality.

[Specialka]

Oh, glad to hear he did not harm any women then if he was found not guilty.

Obviously, you did read and understood why he was released ...

[Shadowferal]

But there aren't. You're confusing outcomes that you don't like with there being an ethical issue with someone's actions.

Yup.
And he does that a lot.

[Specialka]

I've never heard of a legal system in which you can get released even if you are found guilty or confessed of being guilty.

Must be a meme.

Where are you living ? On the moon ? Even in my country, you can be released for "vice de forme" or "vice de procédure" which is exactly what happened here.

[Themius]

But there aren't. You're confusing outcomes that you don't like with there being an ethical issue with someone's actions.

So it is ethical to fight to evict natives from their own land for a pipeline… because that’s the job…that would mean it is ethical to fight for exploitation of peoples which is a contradiction.

[Specialka]

So it is ethical to fight to evict natives from their own land for a pipeline… because that’s the job…that would mean it is ethical to fight for exploitation of peoples which is a contradiction.

Lawyers SWEAR that yes. I do not think that those that would evict the natives would SWEAR to do it ?

[cubby]

And now it's a "Huge win"

Jesus.

The whole prosecution of rapists has been set back by like a decade...but wow...what a huge win it is that a man that drugged and raped ~60 women served less than even the minimum of his sentence.

"Rapist goes free because of legal technicality" is never a win. Never.

You know you have low standards for success when getting the consolation prize counts as a win...

The conviction itself was a huge win - the time served fucking sucks, should have been lifetime (might have been if he had served the full 10 years).

No one is saying him going free is a win. What we are saying is that his conviction and jail sentence, given all the circumstances of his case, is a win.

Why has the "whole prosecution of rapists been set back by like a decade"?

[Themius]

You really can't see the problem with a lawyer or the justice system in general bending to the will of the Vox Populi?

Lawyers and the courts are supposed to ignore social pressures specifically to protect society from its own worst tendencies.

Judges and sometimes juries on the other hand can and should wield their power to uphold the spirit of the law rather than just the literal letter of the law.

What you're arguing for is literally mob rule.

Your position is so extreme, so illogical, so asinine that you completely and successfully derailed the thread and are forcing people who'd like to see Cosby rot in a jail cell until the sun don't shine into defending his release.

That's because your alternative is between scary and absolutely idiotic.

Again, the issue here was never with his defense. The issue is with the prosecution and the court itself.

- - - Updated - - -



He is quilty. He has raped dozens possibly hundreds of women. He confessed to it.

He was released on a technicality.

You’re pretending I am stating an action to be taken. I am not. I am not arguing for mob rule. I can do an ethical analysis to say why that’s already unethical because society expects rules. If mob rule were true universally would mean it is ethical for a mob to kill someone for being gay which is a contradiction.

I never made that argument though.

Instead I stated how the actions of the lawyer can often work to facilitate unethical people to thrive which is unethical. That doesn’t say what the system should be or how to fix it.

It’s literally simply an observation