Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh, I think it's obvious -- again, from my layperson's remove -- that often the plaintiffs are being poorly served by their attorneys, who either shouldn't have taken the case or are in over their heads.

Well, I think that I will probably now do a Snarfticle (lawsplainer!) on the topic.

The main reason I have avoided it is that every time I think about this particular topic, I immediately get Elton John's song stuck in my head (I'm still standing...) and when that happens, I get the video stuck in my head...


Two things-

1. Now I have inflicted this upon you. YOU ARE WELCOME!

2. Cocaine is a helluva drug.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

I would have taken more drugs (i.e. more than a puff or two of marijuana) if they didn't involve things like snorting powder, having an inebriated person stab me with a needle or smoking generally.

I figured out early on that everyone doing drugs was more than happy to let me have the booze they brought to a party and no longer needed or wanted, and my path was set.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Then I figured out early on that everyone doing drugs was more than happy to let me have the booze they brought to a party and no longer needed or wanted, and my path was set.

Once again, the wisdom of Mama Snarf is proven!

Only users lose drugs...

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

A good lawyer's true superpower is the power to turn every question into a question about procedure.

It's the bad ones that are pounding on the table. The good ones are pointing out that the law and the facts don't apply, because, procedurally, the court can't hear the case.

And they are the lawyers that are worth paying for. Procedure isn't something that is designed by psychotic lawmakers to let criminals roam the streets. It's the defence of the innocent against oppression. Letting people being sentenced without a clear definition of a crime, and possible associated sanction, and with dubious evidence opens the way to judicial activism at best and tyranny at worst. Sometimes, a morally contemptible person escapes punishment because of a text that say "killing people with a knife is forbidden" and he used a screwdriver and claim it's totally different. But then, the legislative power is tasked to rewrite the text according to the morality they want to enforce. Having judges decide on what is a crime and what it isn't is worse (hello, you deducted expanse X from your taxes, so we'll charge you with tax fraud, even if no laws forbids deducting expanse X... welcome to jail because I feel like it).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And they are the lawyers that are worth paying for. Procedure isn't something that is designed by psychotic lawmakers to let criminals roam the streets. It's the defence of the innocent against oppression. Letting people being sentenced without a clear definition of a crime, and possible associated sanction, and with dubious evidence opens the way to judicial activism at best and tyranny at worst. Sometimes, a morally contemptible person escapes punishment because of a text that say "killing people with a knife is forbidden" and he used a screwdriver and claim it's totally different. But then, the legislative power is tasked to rewrite the text according to the morality they want to enforce. Having judges decide on what is a crime and what it isn't is worse (hello, you deducted expanse X from your taxes, so we'll charge you with tax fraud, even if no laws forbids deducting expanse X... welcome to jail because I feel like it).

I agree, with the exception that I don't practice criminal law.

I was going to, but then I realized ... criminals.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Oh, I think it's obvious -- again, from my layperson's remove -- that often the plaintiffs are being poorly served by their attorneys, who either shouldn't have taken the case or are in over their heads.

It's true even from a qualified point of views. I have seen lawyers in court saying things that actively made their client's case worse, by providing unasked information that totally destroyed the argument they were making. It was quite sad actually.

 

[Ryujin]

It's true even from a qualified point of views. I have seen lawyers in court saying things that actively made their client's case worse, by providing unasked information that totally destroyed the argument they were making. It was quite sad actually.

Or by providing evidence via media interview, social media post, or vlog bragging. Those are fun.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I agree, with the exception that I don't practice criminal law.

I was going to, but then I realized ... criminals.

I can see that. And I respect this choice. But criminals are probably the one that most desperately need good lawyers. Not because the goal is to let the guilty free, but because it's always easy to lean toward severity. Public opinion will always yell when someone serves a term, leave jail and resume doing the exact same activity he was found guilty in the first place. They'll say "justice is inefficent, judges are crappy". So the natural leaning of the judge will be to err on the side of safety and be heavy-handed. Most judges do actively fight this leaning to be fair and apply criminal law properly. But it's easier when the lawyer is here to point out the right facts, the circumstances and help reach a fair sentencing.

Or by providing evidence via media interview, social media post, or vlog bragging. Those are fun.

Yes, but it's more often than not the defendant that does that. Somehow they don't get that the right to remain silent applies also on Twitter...

 

[Bedrockgames]

I agree, with the exception that I don't practice criminal law.

I was going to, but then I realized ... criminals.

Bird Law?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can see that. And I respect this choice. But criminals are probably the one that most desperately need good lawyers.

So, this is a little too heavy a topic for right now, so I will be brief.

I realized in law school my first summer while clerking for a state court judge (my 1L summer) that I would never, ever practice either family law or criminal law.

Family law for two reasons- one, I just couldn't even. Two reasons; first, the vast majority of the attorneys were terrible, and basis things like "evidentiary rules" were barely present because, again, terrible attorneys. But the main reason? Way too sad. I think people who do that (other than high-end divorce attorneys) eventually either burn out on the emotion and stop caring, or just ... are a mess.

Criminal law? Because it is so structurally unfair. There are good people (good defense attorneys and yes, even good prosecutors) but the systemic issues ... no. Nope.

Again, very heavy topic, but the systemic issues in the criminal justice system are far-reaching. And I didn't want to be a part of that.