Timeline for Disclosing damning information as a lawyer
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 8:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 6, 2020 at 12:04 | comment | added | Lhakryma DL |
@DaleM I don't see how this While it may allow this one murderer to walk free it prevents 100 falsely accused individuals from going to jail makes sense. How would a lawyer bringing up evidence a guilty person tells them, logically lead to more innocent people going to jail?
|
|
| May 6, 2020 at 5:05 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | @LhakrymaDL if the murderer tells no one he walks free. Our legal system treats lawyers as an extension of their client. Telling your lawyer is the legal equivalent of talking to yourself. While it may allow this one murderer to walk free it prevents 100 falsely accused individuals from going to jail - there’s your justice. | |
| May 6, 2020 at 2:15 | comment | added | Lhakryma DL | @DaleM that's completely besides the point. The point is that if the murderer comes forth with those videos as evidence, then he will be convicted for those murders. If the lawyer (who the murderer told about the videos) presents them, he's walking free, according to this answer. I want you to tell me exactly where the justice is in that. | |
| May 5, 2020 at 20:47 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | @LhakrymaDL and to be punished, the state has to prove that. That’s what “innocent until proven guilty” means. | |
| May 5, 2020 at 20:42 | comment | added | Lhakryma DL | @DaleM in this scenario, the dude actually committed murders :) and filmed them | |
| May 3, 2020 at 10:37 | comment | added | Dale M♦ | @LhakrymaDL by the way, just because you’ve killed someone (even 51 someones) doesn’t mean you’ve committed murder. | |
| May 3, 2020 at 7:02 | comment | added | Lhakryma DL | Why does the quality of evidence matter LESS than the provenience of the evidence? Evidence is still evidence, regardless of how it was acquired, just as if the most mathematically illiterate person saying that "2+2=4" doesn't suddenly make that statement wrong just because he's known to be mathematically illiterate | |
| May 3, 2020 at 1:37 | comment | added | zibadawa timmy | @LhakrymaDL What alleged criminal would ever use a lawyer if the lawyer could just turn around and sell them up the river with impunity? What alleged criminal would ever receive justice and fair consideration without skilled legal representation who is fully informed of the facts relevant to the charges he must defend his client against? The answer to both is approximately none (there may be the occasional fool or successful pro se litigant). The legal system is vast and complex and is, rather by design, not accessible to the layman; it's basically written in its own (sub)language. | |
| May 3, 2020 at 0:17 | history | edited | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2020 at 13:29 | comment | added | Sophie Swett | @LhakrymaDL Remember that there are two kinds of justice. A justice system should try to ensure that guilty people are convicted, but it should also try to ensure that innocent people are acquitted. Generally, it's considered much worse to convict an innocent person than to acquit a guilty person, so there are lots of rules designed to try to ensure that innocent people are not convicted. One of those rules is that evidence gathered illegally is usually inadmissible. Failing to uphold that rule would also result in injustice, and it would be injustice of the worse kind. | |
| May 2, 2020 at 11:56 | comment | added | Lhakryma DL | That's horrible... So basically the legal system is more concerned with procedure than with justice and truth? | |
| May 2, 2020 at 1:39 | history | answered | Dale M♦ | CC BY-SA 4.0 |