Could you be a defence lawyer?

Huyton Layne · March 14, 2015

Just seeing that Stephen Jones, the fella that defended Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber, is now defending a fraternity that had a chapter closed after a video similar in theme to the Chelsea train one was put online.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...silon-fraternity-plans-to-sue-the-university/

So, could you be a defence lawyer, knowing that as well as fighting to save innocent people from prosecution you'd also have to, to do your job properly, get the best deal possible for rapists and murders.

Eggs · March 14, 2015

...it's a lot about proving guilt and it's difficult to compare US justice with ours but it's a very fair question.

peteblue · March 14, 2015

I would defend someone who I thought was innocent with my life. If I thought someone was guilty I'd get them to plead guilty.......

ilikecheese · March 14, 2015

Innocent until proven guilty.

mezzrow · March 14, 2015

Huyton Layne · March 14, 2015

peteblue said:
I would defend someone who I thought was innocent with my life. If I thought someone was guilty I'd get them to plead guilty.......

But to do your job to the best of your ability you've got to get the best deal possible for them. Would you be ok with a plea deal and reducing the sentence of a serious offense?

Goat · March 14, 2015

Its not so much them defending their client, its more about defending the law, I think.

Clearly im not a defence lawyer, but I suspect thats how they rationalise it.

mezzrow · March 14, 2015

Now, for a serious reply to this issue of the lawsuit. The first amendment covers the right to speak and act like an a-hole, which these individuals clearly did. Society may condemn them for revealing their racist selves in such a egregious manner, but the state can take no action to prosecute them for free speech that does not call for any violent action toward others. If they made specific threats, it would be different.

OU and its president reacted emotionally to their disgust at the tape and sanctioned the fraternity and expelled the two individuals on the video.

These people will sue, and they will win. Even the ACLU has conceded as much, on the basis of the first amendment. This is the key to where we differ from you folks. It's not illegal to have disgusting views and express them in public.

Tubey · March 14, 2015

What I don't understand is why anyone would want to hire McVeigh's lawyer.

I mean, the headline writes itself - "Racist fraternity hire mass murderer defending lawyer"

They may as well rename themselves Camp Hitler and be done with it.

Tubey · March 14, 2015

mezzrow said:
Now, for a serious reply to this issue of the lawsuit. The first amendment covers the right to speak and act like an a-hole, which these individuals clearly did. Society may condemn them for revealing their racist selves in such a egregious manner, but the state can take no action to prosecute them for free speech that does not call for any violent action toward others. If they made specific threats, it would be different.

OU and its president reacted emotionally to their disgust at the tape and sanctioned the fraternity and expelled the two individuals on the video.

These people will sue, and they will win. Even the ACLU has conceded as much, on the basis of the first amendment. This is the key to where we differ from you folks. It's not illegal to have disgusting views and express them in public.

Untrue, even in American law. The chants will be deemed as segregation, which is illegal. The university has no obligation to support any institution, so they are free to disassociate if they see fit.

sageyefc · March 14, 2015

All about the money

mezzrow · March 14, 2015

Tubey said:
Untrue, even in American law. The chants will be deemed as segregation, which is illegal. The university has no obligation to support any institution, so they are free to disassociate if they see fit.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Stay tuned. I'd put money on the outcome.

coollino · March 14, 2015

sageyefc said:
All about the money

The money isn't that good considering the hours and work they have to put in, if this is in the context of state/legal aid defence.

Tubey · March 14, 2015

mezzrow said:
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Stay tuned. I'd put money on the outcome.

You'd lose then! Their "head office" as disassociated from them and they have absolutely no legal right to exist under the university banner. If they want to remain formed and "independent", then they can form whatever club they want, but to say the university has to allow them to exist no matter what they say or do is obviously incorrect.

The only thing they can sue for is possible libel/defamation by tarring the whole institution as racist off the back of a few members, but that's a separate issue. The decision to disband them is completely legal.