Could you be a defence lawyer?

[Huyton Layne]

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.

The first amendment is wonderfully flawed. Amazes me that they didn't even ban Nazi speech and symbols after the war.

 

[Del]

No

 

[jaycee]

i dont see the difference between defence/prosecution lawyer both have the same moral dilema in court

 

[RAFUH]

Stay tuned. I'd put money on the outcome.

Agree, unless there is some kind of code of conduct (ie don't embarrass the university) the greek system/frat had with OU. Might give them wiggle room. I know any student group had to do to have one to exist at my university....basically for situations like this.

 

[Tubey]

Agree, unless there is some kind of code of conduct (ie don't embarrass the university) the greek system/frat had with OU. Might give them wiggle room. I know any student group had to do to have one to exist at my university....basically for situations like this.

You abode by a code of conduct at your university, and if you broke that code of conduct the university had the right to not associate itself with you or your institution if it so wished.

The 1st amendment only comes into play if someone is forbidden from expressing their views - this is not the case here, as they can say or do whatever they like; just don't expect the university to associate themselves with it, as they have the right to their own conduct too.

 

[mezzrow]

Agree, unless there is some kind of code of conduct (ie don't embarrass the university) the greek system/frat had with OU. Might give them wiggle room. I know any student group had to do to have one to exist at my university....basically for situations like this.

True dat, regarding the SAE side of this. For the two individuals that got booted, much less so.

 

[RAFUH]

True dat, regarding the SAE side of this. For the two individuals that got booted, much less so.

Calculated risk by OU I'd say. They'll settle. They have deep pockets and alumni with deep pockets. This hurts the football program which as I'm sure you know, is simply unacceptable.

 

[Pat's Van]

OBJECTION !!!

 

[admirschleck]

Well, I'm going to be fair and 100% honest here and say yes. Just as someone already said, it's all about money.

 

[Gwladys St. Glory]

Already a scumbag, so I've no need to enhance my reputation...so no, I couldn't be one.

 

[bring the ghost on]

I don't think it is the murky ethical waters that everyone on here is describing.

As a human right, you are entitled to a fair trial and that means having legal representation.

The lawyer in a criminal trial is basically the middle man between the defendant and the court. They are the mouthpiece who can offer advice on the law and then put forward submissions.

Lawyers have a strict code of conduct. If they know their client is guilty, they can't act unless they plead accordingly. If the accused is not admitting anything, then they are innocent until proven guilty.

Criminal lawyers are certainly not in the job for the perks... Late night police station visits, legal aid cuts. They are mostly passionate about justice and I think their efforts should be recognised.

 

[Hellerad]

Not many people understand what lawyers do. Too many stereotypes.

 

[PhilM]

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.

Correct. As you mention, they would argue that every person has the right for a fair trial and representation, thus someone needs to fulfil the role.

Lawyers have a strict code of conduct. If they know their client is guilty, they can't act unless they plead accordingly. If the accused is not admitting anything, then they are innocent until proven guilty.

Criminal lawyers are certainly not in the job for the perks... Late night police station visits, legal aid cuts. They are mostly passionate about justice and I think their efforts should be recognised.

You may be correct in some instances, as there are some respectable defence lawyers out there whom fulfil in the name of a fair system.

However, equally there are many more unscrupulous individuals who do not follow the 'strict' code of conduct you mention.

Everyone has the right for a fair trial, yet choosing to defend a certain category of criminal purely for the financial gains doesn't shown morality.

I've experienced one case where a well-known defence lawyer in this city utterly lambasted an honest victims in court to the point she broke.

As a result the trial eventually collapsed as she made a blunder in the box in a distressed state; jury eventually questioned her credibility.

A prolific criminal walks free; a young girl received no justice and emotionally distraught; the defence are richer.

He then later that evening (in a drunken, boastful state) bought her a drink to say sorry as 'he knew he was guilty but it's his job'.

There are good ones out there who do the job correctly and to them I give credit. Individuals like him though are repulsive!

 

[roydo]

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.

Is right. I have a mate who has defended the scum of the earth. Rapists, child rapists, the lot.

His view is that a robust, legally sound defence means any conviction means the Police/CPS/Prosecuting barristers have done their job properly, which means justice is served, with a reduced chance of an appeal on a spurious point of law later.

It, (a robust defence), makes it far harder for innocents to be fitted up also.

 

[LostLegend]

Is right. I have a mate who has defended the scum of the earth. Rapists, child rapists, the lot.

His view is that a robust, legally sound defence means any conviction means the Police/CPS/Prosecuting barristers have done their job properly, which means justice is served, with a reduced chance of an appeal on a spurious point of law later.

It, (a robust defence), makes it far harder for innocents to be fitted up also.

This

The legal system, in the UK at least relies a lot on precedents. While it might be tempting to have an obviously guilty 'Norris T. Nonce' thrown to the lions, have his remains locked up with the key thown away; a lawyer has to ensure this does not happen and that his client is treated 'fairly' within the bounds of the law.

The second you start to bias the rules against one group of offenders simply because you don't like their offense is when you start to slide down a slippery slope of injustice for others. Once the precedent has been set in one case, what is to stop the prosecutor using it in another much more mundane case?