Political Crossfire Forums

Haven't you ever wondered why prosecutors are very over represented in politics, but you can't find someone who defended criminals, unless they were white collar ones.

Voters will always judge, even when the constitution does not.

There is a difference, I think, between private defense counsel and public defense counsel. Many people don't like those fancy loyermen that violent rapists can afford as defense counsel. I don't think the ad was attacking the right to it, but rather attacking those people who choose to use it because it was assuming them guilty in the first place. And that's more of the problem, assumption of guilt. I mean, to be fair, it's a fair assumption most time, but then it can end up very badly if indeed the government did f**k up royally and managed to charge the wrong person.

but the ad was associating the man as being someone who would do business with criminals. And that's absolutely TRUE mind you, he was doing business with criminals. it can easily backfire, considering that was his job though and it's not like he was smuggling heroin to his jailed clients. OR WAS HE

Conservatives, like everybody else, value rhe constitution only insofar as it furthers their goals.

At least libs don't pretend to worship the constitution I guess. The duplicity of republicans in this regard is amusing.

Why is it wrong to give the best possible defense you can to a guilty person? Not only is that not unethical, to do anything else as a defense attorney would be unethical, whether you are public or private.

I like it when laymen use the word "technicalities." Makes me chuckle.

whenever people talk about other people than themselves as "laymen" to distinguish from themselves it makes me think of horses drawing and quartering them

He has a point though. What "technicality" got oj acquitted?