+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: Lawyer X - Police (/thread-4996.html)
Re: Lawyer X - Police - LP - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 03:05 AM)cookie2 date Wrote:Failures in both instances.A dyad in The Force!
Re: Lawyer X - Police - Thryleon - 12-01-2020
I think that we generalise too much with this stuff and overcomplicate.
Police need to gather the evidence cleanly and by the book.
Lawyers need to have confidentiality with their clients, and be for the most part, ambivalent to whether or not the person is guilty but ensure that the protocols followed are above board.
Thats the only way to ensure that innocent people are not put away to suit the legal system. Its also to ensure that guilty people are truly guilty and not just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
They also need to be sure that their defenders will not become the reason they get put away because they divulged information that incriminates them when seeking legal advice. That being said, if Lawyers know that their clients are guilty, they are supposed to drop those cases else they become accomplices.
Re: Lawyer X - Police - LP - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 03:36 AM)Thryleon date Wrote:Lawyers need to have confidentiality with their clients, and be for the most part, ambivalent to whether or not the person is guilty but ensure that the protocols followed are above board.Are these two points consistent?
Thats the only way to ensure that innocent people are not put away to suit the legal system. Its also to ensure that guilty people are truly guilty and not just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There must be many scenarios where a lawyer knows an innocent person has been jailed wrongly because one of their clients is guilty of that very crime!
I see the Police and Lawyers as Yin and Yang, one cannot function without the other and therefore it is ridiculous to expect zero overlap.
Re: Lawyer X - Police - LP - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 04:36 AM)LP date Wrote:Are these two points consistent?I see the Police and Lawyers as Yin and Yang, one cannot function without the other and therefore it is ridiculous to expect zero overlap. So there is irony when each portrays the other as a mortal enemy!
There must be many scenarios where a lawyer knows an innocent person has been jailed wrongly because one of their clients is guilty of that very crime!
(12-01-2020, 03:36 AM)Thryleon date Wrote:That being said, if Lawyers know that their clients are guilty, they are supposed to drop those cases else they become accomplices.Does it function that way though?
Could you argue that a lawyer dropping a case is a tell, a defacto concession of client guilt!
[member=105]Thryleon[/member] What is "Good" as in "Good vs Bad" Is bad the police leveraging a greedy and narcissistic lawyer to put a career "child killing drug peddler" off the streets? Some will no doubt claim the high ground, and advise us to turn the other cheek. Tell that to the parents who have watched a child die from a drug overdose!
Lawyers and socialists will argue against those actions and infer an anarchy of no limits is the ultimate destination, but I seriously doubt our democracy crumbles when a bad lawyer goes bad and the police leverage that event!
Removing access to lawyers by instilling paranoia might be the best thing to happen to the crooks, from a public perspective!
Maybe the public anger needs to be directed at those who award the appeals? A mighty deep and dark pit!
Re: Lawyer X - Police - Mav - 12-01-2020
The idea Lawyer X was horrified by the criminality of her clients and decided to put morality above legal rules might be a bit of a self-serving fantasy. It seems the genesis of all this was when she was arrested by police for drug offending when she was a law student. The police seem to have used this “kompromat” to turn her à la the KGB. I haven’t bothered to stay on top of her story but IIRC she was a CI before the Purana taskforce was a gleam in the Police Commissioner’s eye.
Looked at in this way, would it be okay for the police to send in a spy to manipulate legal proceedings and feed information to the police? It reminds me of accounts which suggest as much as 10% of some civil rights and other groups in the 60s were paid FBI informants (who may have influenced events) and illegal wiretaps were commonplace.
Re: Lawyer X - Police - LP - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 04:58 AM)Mav date Wrote:It reminds me of accounts which suggest as much as 10% of some civil rights and other groups in the 60s were paid FBI informants (who may have influenced events) and illegal wiretaps were commonplace.10%!
We can't even keep 10% from escaping trivial quarantine, yet the FBI was able to keep 10% of civil rights and other groups quite possibly numbering in the many thousands on the QT! :o
We miss the good old days, phone book diplomacy and brown paper bags! ;D
Re: Lawyer X - Police - Baggers - 12-01-2020
(12-01-2020, 04:58 AM)Mav link Wrote:The idea Lawyer X was horrified by the criminality of her clients and decided to put morality above legal rules might be a bit of a self-serving fantasy. It seems the genesis of all this was when she was arrested by police for drug offending when she was a law student. The police seem to have used this “kompromat” to turn her à la the KGB. I haven’t bothered to stay on top of her story but IIRC she was a CI before the Purana taskforce was a gleam in the Police Commissioner’s eye.
Looked at in this way, would it be okay for the police to send in a spy to manipulate legal proceedings and feed information to the police? It reminds me of accounts which suggest as much as 10% of some civil rights and other groups in the 60s were paid FBI informants (who may have influenced events) and illegal wiretaps were commonplace.
Not sure what you mean by 'manipulate legal proceedings'. A spy sent in to feed information to police seems sneaky, yet it may well be the difference between a crook continuing to harm people and sent to jail. Moral dilemma.
Illegal wiretaps may also deliver evidence of serious crime and hence bring the perpetrators to justice yet it, too, is sneaky and seemingly dishonest - as suggested by the name 'illegal wiretap.' Another moral dilemma.
An extreme example. I hear of a neighbour being a pedo... but he's a pillar of the community and is untouchable. All attempts to bring him to justice has resulted in the kid being shamed and accused of lying, so no more families come forward. So, I break the law by trespassing and put him under surveillance and see him violating a child so I film it.
How many moral dilemmas in that scenario? If I just film it and show the authorities, how many violations may occur in the interim - ruining a life or lives? Yet I obtained the evidence illegally. Would it be inadmissible? What if I smashed in the door and beat the crap out of him then reported it along with the film evidence? Illegally obtained film, breaking and entering, assault... I should end up in jail, but I stopped the crime, but it may well continue and I end up with a police record!!! Another moral dilemma.
Within the law we have dilemmas it would seem. Perhaps it's the letter-of-the-law, vs, the spirit of the law, vs equity? And when they clash? Holy mackerel! As Kermit said (as a metaphor), "It aint easy being green."
Re: Lawyer X - Police - Mav - 12-01-2020
Not 10% of the total number. But some groups of greater interest were thoroughly infiltrated. Hoover had a massive hard on when it came to anti-war protestors and civil rights activists and together they may well have been half of the FBI’s work.
The program was known as COINTELPRO.
Re: Lawyer X - Police - Gointocarlton - 12-01-2020
Lets be clear, we are talking about drug dealers, murderers and violent offenders with total disregard for the law. I for one am comfortable that they have been locked away by any means the police had. Fargum.
Re: Lawyer X - Police - Mav - 12-01-2020
We could perhaps have a system where the police commissioners can declare the guilt of guilty people and then refer them to a judge for sentencing. That would be a very efficient system and there could hardly be any complaints about it. After all, everyone wants to see the guilty punished. And the police commissioners wouldn’t have the power to declare innocent people to be guilty.