Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
For a 19-year-old with no priors who stole only a 40, I'd say it's a little steep.smackaholic wrote:terry, why is it that 1 year probation is too steep for a petty (or is it petit) thief? did he have any priors?
Unfortunately for you, a little "technicality" known as the Constitution would prevent that from ever becoming a reality.SoCalTrjn wrote:Chop his hand off, he steals again, chop his head offTerry in Crapchester wrote:You didn't ask me, but . . .Van wrote:Serious question...
Why did you choose defense, rather than prosecution? Seems to me that defending some of these people could easily cause me sleepless nights.
A lot of the time, criminal defense is about damage control, first and foremost. And, believe it or not, in a lot of cases, that damage control goes a long way toward serving the interests of justice.
Refer to my post above about the 19-year-old charged with Petit Larceny for stealing a 40. Was he guilty of Petit Larceny? Yes. Could he have gotten one year in the clink as a result? Yes. Would that have served the interests of justice? Hell, no.
Now, I suppose you could argue that in a case like that, damage control is also a responsibility of the judge. And technically, you'd be right. Problem is, when your talking about judges who have to face the public every now and again, sometimes they're less interested in true justice than they are in looking like they're "tough on crime." So putting damage control entirely on the lap of the judge is not exactly advisable, to put it mildly.
Just one reason, anyway.
Another reason: many prosecutors are full-time employees. That's all they do. If you want to practice criminal law but also want to practice in other areas of law, private practice may be your only option. That leaves you with only defense as an alternative. Note that in some smaller areas, many prosecutors are part-time and also maintain a private practice, but that's almost never the case in more heavily populated areas.
The kneejerk fuckos like mvskkkal and cuda and this trjn guy who profess to be the real Americans are always the ones who hate the Constitution the most. mvskkkal even professes to understand that it is a limiting document. Dolts.Terry in Crapchester wrote: Unfortunately for you, a little "technicality" known as the Constitution would prevent that from ever becoming a reality.
Perhaps you'd be more comfortable living somewhere like Iran or Saudi Arabia. I'd be willing to bet that your "youth sports as war" approach would go over a little better there as well.
That's about right. I have one or two '"who done it's" a year and I do one or two hundred cases a year.Van wrote: 99%?
There is no such thing as a "basic dirtbag." Everybody caught up in the American Judicial System has rights. I protect those rights.Who gives a crap about Gitmo? You don't defend those types of clients, and we're not talking about the basic rights and wrongs of our jurisprudence system. We're talking your basic dirtbag, who just raped or killed someone; who will do so again, if he's allowed to roam the streets again.
You're how old? If you don't understand why the state has to prove guilt and the problems associated with any other system, as smart as I am, you are not going to learn it from me.You have no problem sleeping at night, knowing you helped to set that guy free? When he does it again, it doesn't bother you, especially when you see a whole new set of another victim's family?
I dumbed it down for you, but yes that works for me.At that point you scream to yourself, "Yeah, well, there are people being held at Gitmo who are innocent!" and that works for you?
Do you ever lose any sleep over thoughts like, "I know the first client I got acquitted today actually did commit the murder and will likely kill again soon, but I'm OK with that, knowing I upheld my sworn oath as an officer of the court to zealously defend him. But I'm kicking myself realizing that the second case today resulted in my returning to society an individual who, though innocent of the charges brought against him, is truly a vapid fuckchip."Moving Sale wrote:There is no such thing as a "basic dirtbag." Everybody caught up in the American Judicial System has rights. I protect those rights.
You're right Van. Fuck the 6th Amendment, that was pre 9-11 thinking anyways.Van wrote:When the guy goes out and does it again, and you knew he was guilty the first time, is that how you console the families of both sets of victims?