Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Defense attorney dehumanizes the victim

Page 1 of 2 [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

07 Dec 2013, 9:15 am

http://nypost.com/2013/12/06/hey-she-wa ... SocialFlow


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

07 Dec 2013, 9:35 am

Wha- wuh- why would anyone seriously try that as a defense?



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

07 Dec 2013, 9:36 am

beneficii wrote:
http://nypost.com/2013/12/06/hey-she-was-just-a-ho-sick-bid-by-killers-lawyer/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow


It worked. :cry:

From article, “A sentence of 25 years to life is an incredibly long period of time judge,” defense lawyer John Scarpa said.

later ...

From article, "Queens Supreme Court Justice Richard Buchter scolded Scarpa as he sentenced Everett to 29 years in prison".

25 to life set at 29 years

According to this site, http://newyorkcriminaldefense.blogspot. ... rimer.html

for violent felonies a prisoner in NY can be released in 6/7 of the sentence for good behavior ..

so he can be out in 29 * 6/7 = 24.85 years



GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

07 Dec 2013, 11:26 am

/\ According to several other news sources, the perpetrator got 29 years to life. If so, then he has to serve 29 years before he can apply for parole.



CockneyRebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 118,420
Location: In my little Olympic World of peace and love

07 Dec 2013, 11:28 am

The law people will get their just rewards in the end. People that evil should.


_________________
The Family Enigma


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Dec 2013, 1:43 am

Lawyers are paid to represent their clients to the best of their abilities, not to be nice or decent or seek the truth. If disparaging the victim of a crime might serve the client in some way, that is what the lawyer should do.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

08 Dec 2013, 2:23 am

Dox47 wrote:
Lawyers are paid to represent their clients to the best of their abilities, not to be nice or decent or seek the truth. If disparaging the victim of a crime might serve the client in some way, that is what the lawyer should do.


This dude was basically arguing that the Equal Protection Clause needed to be thrown out. I know some activists are writing the state bar, so we'll see what happens on that front.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

08 Dec 2013, 4:32 am

Dox47 wrote:
Lawyers are paid to represent their clients to the best of their abilities, not to be nice or decent or seek the truth. If disparaging the victim of a crime might serve the client in some way, that is what the lawyer should do.

...and this is one of the problems with the justice system (though not the biggest one - *that* particular award goes to the blending of the political and justice systems). The purpose of the court is to determine the truth, and if lawyers are getting in the way of that, they should be barred. Hehe. Punny.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Dec 2013, 10:05 pm

Magneto wrote:
The purpose of the court is to determine the truth, and if lawyers are getting in the way of that, they should be barred. Hehe. Punny.


You're missing the point, finding the "truth" might be the purpose of the court, but the purpose of the individual lawyers is to make the best possible case for their client, whether that client is accused of a crime or is the state doing the accusing, to the best of their abilities, using all available resources while staying within the law. That's how an adversarial system works, each side makes it's best case and a judge or jury decides the "winner". In other words, hate the game, not the players.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

08 Dec 2013, 10:08 pm

beneficii wrote:
This dude was basically arguing that the Equal Protection Clause needed to be thrown out. I know some activists are writing the state bar, so we'll see what happens on that front.


So what if he was? Is it illegal to argue against the Equal Protection Clause? In this country, is it illegal to argue for or against anything?

I mean it's kinda sad that busybodies on the internet are trying to get a guy sanctioned because they don't like something he said, but it's their time to waste I suppose.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Dec 2013, 7:36 am

Dox47 wrote:
Magneto wrote:
The purpose of the court is to determine the truth, and if lawyers are getting in the way of that, they should be barred. Hehe. Punny.


You're missing the point, finding the "truth" might be the purpose of the court, but the purpose of the individual lawyers is to make the best possible case for their client, whether that client is accused of a crime or is the state doing the accusing, to the best of their abilities, using all available resources while staying within the law. That's how an adversarial system works, each side makes it's best case and a judge or jury decides the "winner". In other words, hate the game, not the players.


Thank you. That is exactly right. Attorneys joust for their clients. It is up to the Judge to make sure the contest takes place within the scope of the rules.

ruveyn



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

09 Dec 2013, 9:21 am

Dox47 wrote:
beneficii wrote:
This dude was basically arguing that the Equal Protection Clause needed to be thrown out. I know some activists are writing the state bar, so we'll see what happens on that front.


So what if he was? Is it illegal to argue against the Equal Protection Clause? In this country, is it illegal to argue for or against anything?

I mean it's kinda sad that busybodies on the internet are trying to get a guy sanctioned because they don't like something he said, but it's their time to waste I suppose.


No, but the state bar might consider him to have committed ethical violations. That's enough for disbarment, too.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


AutisticMillionaire
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2013
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 174
Location: Montana

09 Dec 2013, 12:43 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Magneto wrote:
The purpose of the court is to determine the truth, and if lawyers are getting in the way of that, they should be barred. Hehe. Punny.


You're missing the point, finding the "truth" might be the purpose of the court, but the purpose of the individual lawyers is to make the best possible case for their client, whether that client is accused of a crime or is the state doing the accusing, to the best of their abilities, using all available resources while staying within the law. That's how an adversarial system works, each side makes it's best case and a judge or jury decides the "winner". In other words, hate the game, not the players.


Thank you. That is exactly right. Attorneys joust for their clients. It is up to the Judge to make sure the contest takes place within the scope of the rules.

ruveyn


Dox and Ruveyn got it right.

If I hire a mercenary I want him to fight, not play patty-cake with the opponents. I want him to kill them, destroy their world and break their spirits...the same with my lawyer. There is a reason they are called Sharks....you want them to ruthless. It's what they are paid for.

Blaming the Lawyer is a not fair thing to do.


_________________
"I don't care half so much about making money as I do about making my point, and coming out ahead."

"What do I care about law? Ain't I got the power?"
Cornelius Vanderbilt


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

09 Dec 2013, 5:29 pm

Dox47 wrote:
Magneto wrote:
The purpose of the court is to determine the truth, and if lawyers are getting in the way of that, they should be barred. Hehe. Punny.


You're missing the point, finding the "truth" might be the purpose of the court, but the purpose of the individual lawyers is to make the best possible case for their client, whether that client is accused of a crime or is the state doing the accusing, to the best of their abilities, using all available resources while staying within the law. That's how an adversarial system works, each side makes it's best case and a judge or jury decides the "winner". In other words, hate the game, not the players.


The thing about court is that it's not really about finding the truth. In theory maybe it is, but in practice it's about who has the best story. Defense lawyers even tell you not to tell them if you really did commit the crime, tell them what you want your story to be. That way they can argue it in court even pretty much knowing it isn't true, but not actually knowing it isn't true.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,241
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Dec 2013, 6:04 pm

Even if it's the job of the defense to zealously defend his/her client, we still don't have to approve of the tactics.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

10 Dec 2013, 10:28 pm

beneficii wrote:
No, but the state bar might consider him to have committed ethical violations. That's enough for disbarment, too.


What specific ethical breaches did he commit? Did he breach client confidentiality? Violate the rules of discovery? Fail to disclose a conflict of interest? Suborn perjury?

Do you even know what legal ethics are, let alone what is and is not an offense warranting disbarment?


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez