The Church and Laws

Neophyte · Aug 23, 2018

TriadSibling said: ↑

Guilt isn't determined before the court's judgement, it's determined as a result of it, after the prosecution can prove that guilt. Justice isn't only about jailing a guilty party, it's also about ensuring that an innocent doesn't get wrongfully prosecuted. That's why it's up to the state to prove their case, beyond a reasonable doubt, with actual evidence. We are granted the right of counsel so that we do not incriminate ourselves unduly. We are granted attorney/client confidentiality so that the court cannot use what we say to our lawyers as evidence, or in a means to skew the truth of the matter (again, the former goes against the 5th amendment). If lawyers were to be expected to be held responsible for their client's alleged crimes, post-release, there would be no defense attorneys out of pure fear, and without defense attorneys, there can be no defense, and without defense, there can be no justice when an innocent is brought before such a court. Lawyers aren't there to make judgement, they're there to present their client's side of the matter. A defense attorney that doesn't do their job to represent their client, regardless of what they were told, would be a moral, and probably legal, detriment to society.
Judgement is left to the judges and the jurors, if you want to hold defense attorneys responsible for crimes committed by the defense, after trial is over and they are released, then surely the jurors and judges must also be held accountable because it was their judgment that set that person free. That's not justice, that's forcing guilt out of fear of being wrong.

If you think innocent people would not be jailed, or coerced into saying something that would incriminate themselves, whether they did it or not, you are sadly mistaken my friend. And that is in today's world, with defense attorneys, and the privileges that come with them.

I'd like to add a final point as well that the system we have is far from perfect, there certainly are crooked attorneys, judges, etc. there's no point in denying that. Perhaps someday we can figure out a better system, but for now, the one we have is paramount, we can't go backward with it, we can only move toward better ways of dealing justice all around.
Click to expand...

I know why the legal system is set up the way it is. I know that the system used in the U.S. is better than most used throughout the World. I understand what the jobs of the Defense, Prosecution and the Judge are. But standing outside the System looking in, it appears that the System was designed to protect the guilty and punish the innocent. That's just the way it is.

vjagan · Aug 23, 2018

Yes,pruning of laws is a must in any system !

buffyfan · Aug 25, 2018

Neophyte said: ↑

I know why the legal system is set up the way it is. I know that the system used in the U.S. is better than most used throughout the World. I understand what the jobs of the Defense, Prosecution and the Judge are. But standing outside the System looking in, it appears that the System was designed to protect the guilty and punish the innocent. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

I have been on both sides of those cases. The issue is that we allow "common men" to be on juries. Example. Manafort trial. I have friends on that case on the State side. I saw what they presented. I have a BBA in Finance. I have worked Financial Crimes. It made ME dizzy. And we are expecting, potentially, a "Janitor" to understand it. There are jury issues passed that. They eliminate from the pool anyone with Finance training on financial cases. Anyone that understands law. Because Judges and Prosecutors want people pushed to their "View" of the law. I have heard VERY questionable Jury Instructions from Judges. I have heard Prosecutors (both when I was one and now) do things a judge should have had them brought up for Bar Review for. Judges who threw out evidence that would hurt the Prosecutions case in pre trial.

Neophyte · Sep 30, 2018

Dreofanarchy · Sep 30, 2018

Neophyte said: ↑

The sanctity of confession is considered the same as lawyer client privileged or doctor patient confidentiality. If the priest is compelled to reveal what was said in confession then a lawyer would be compelled to reveal what he knows of his clients or a doctor compelled to give information about his patient. I'm sure there are other professions where a similar consideration exists.
Click to expand...

I think the only time where the confidentiality doesn’t apply if they say they are going to do something aka murder or whatever. If it’s alre done a priest can’t say shit but they can if they are being told it’s going to happen. It’s very murky water

Log in or Sign up

The Church and Laws

Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

vjagan Trusted.Member

buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

Dreofanarchy Uncle looking for his niece