If a Lawyer represents a guilty client...

[Germany in Pajamas]

Copyright law may in effect maintain the rights of the dead, but the legal forms merely transfer the property to that dead guy's living heirs. Bequeathing your property to a Trust or Comite, is still to a living person, because duly constituted comites count as persons at law.

OP IIRC, if Defendant pleads guilty:Lawyer's duty is to use legal shenanigans to get smaller sentence.
If Defendant pleads not guilty and Lawyer knows or suspects Defendant is Innocent, or suspects Defendant is guilty: Lawyer's duty is to use legal shenanigans to get a not guilty verdict.

If Lawyer knows Defendant is guilty and Defendant continues to plead not guilty: Lawyer's duty is to quit the case and never say why because Confidentiality is essential to due process.


[b]Presumption of Innocence, Double jeopardy, Due process, Trial by jury are not Universals.[/b]
Most ex British colonies have Common Law which has had those Virtues nailed in ever since Magna Charta.
Most foreigners have Civil Law, Code Napoleon, Sharia etc which trample those Virtues into the Dung-pile.

Punish the Defence Attorney is a basic principle of Church Law because Heretics, Jews, Witches and Communists are automatically guilty.

Common Law defines Due process as better 100 guilty go free than one innocent be punished. I reckon we could live with 10.

You don't have the slightest clue what civil law is.

[Xeng He]

You don't have the slightest clue what civil law is.

In general, someone who committed a "serious crime" is probably facing criminal charges.

[Greed and Death]

You don't have the slightest clue what civil law is.

In general, someone who committed a "serious crime" is probably facing criminal charges.

He is referring to the civil and common law divide.
Not the civil and criminal law divide.

[Xeng He]

He is referring to the civil and common law divide.
Not the civil and criminal law divide.

Oooooh.

My mistake.

[Germany in Pajamas]

You don't have the slightest clue what civil law is.

In general, someone who committed a "serious crime" is probably facing criminal charges.

Unless the scare quotes are implying something, that's true of both civil and common law. The primary difference is civil law is based off codified law where common law is based off how previous court rulings interpreted that law.

It's a flat out lie that the accused isn't afforded the same rights the person I responded of claimed was only a feature of common law. You can have a common law system missing one or more of the things he mentioned. You can also have a civil law system with all of the above.

[Greed and Death]

I would have thought that it was families that brought wrongful death suits.

Em, they're dead, they're beyond protection. They protect the living, certainly.


Obviously there was a trial, so there was due process. But I would have thought of it being Zimmerman's right to due process that necessitates a trial.

1. The estate itself can sue. on the bad side, copywrite cases can be brought by estates as well.
2. the dead's rights are being protected by holding the living accountable.
3. i would say it was martins right to process. Zimmerman would rather have not gone through the whole ordeal.

On 3 it is the state's right to bring criminal charges. No matter how greatly one is victimized you can not force the state to bring a criminal charge.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Everyone has the right to a legal defence, apparently. So yeah. They're upholding justice and doing their job.

[Germany in Pajamas]

He is referring to the civil and common law divide.
Not the civil and criminal law divide.

Oooooh.

My mistake.

I seem to have also misunderstood your post. I assumed there was some snark in there that I couldn't quite figure out.

[Gravlen]

OP IIRC, if Defendant pleads guilty:Lawyer's duty is to use legal shenanigans to get smaller sentence.
If Defendant pleads not guilty and Lawyer knows or suspects Defendant is Innocent, or suspects Defendant is guilty: Lawyer's duty is to use legal shenanigans to get a not guilty verdict.

Not quite. The duty is to represent the client to the best of your ability, and ensure that he or she gets the best possible defense. There's no duty to necessarily get a not guilty verdict.

Presumption of Innocence, Double jeopardy, Due process, Trial by jury are not Universals.
Most ex British colonies have Common Law which has had those Virtues nailed in ever since Magna Charta.
Most foreigners have Civil Law, Code Napoleon, Sharia etc which trample those Virtues into the Dung-pile.

This is untrue, at least when it comes to Civil law. Presumption of innocence, fair trial and due process are all important aspects of Civil law.

[Galborg]

Category mistake: Civil Law has 2 different meanings.

In that post, I applied CL1 = an entire system of Law derived from Canon Law ie Papal church Law, used in Europe etc.

CL2 is a sub-faction of Common Law used in Britain etc. Criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Civil cases are when people make a contract to exchange goods, money, services, duties etc; such cases are proven on the Balance of Probabilities.

This is untrue, at least when it comes to Civil law. Presumption of innocence, fair trial and due process are all important aspects of Civil law.

When the defendant is accused of Protestantism, Witchcraft or Communism, they are automatically guilty according to Canon Law.

[Germany in Pajamas]

Category mistake: Civil Law has 2 different meanings.

In that post, I applied CL1 = an entire system of Law derived from Canon Law ie Papal church Law, used in Europe etc.

CL2 is a sub-faction of Common Law used in Britain etc. Criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Civil cases are when people make a contract to exchange goods, money, services, duties etc; such cases are proven on the Balance of Probabilities.

That's not at all an accurate description of civil law in Europe. Where in Europe is Canon Law still used? I don't even think it's used in The Vatican any longer.

[Gravlen]

Category mistake: Civil Law has 2 different meanings.

In that post, I applied CL1 = an entire system of Law derived from Canon Law ie Papal church Law, used in Europe etc.

CL2 is a sub-faction of Common Law used in Britain etc. Criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Civil cases are when people make a contract to exchange goods, money, services, duties etc; such cases are proven on the Balance of Probabilities.

I'm more confused now... If you were talking about Civil law as a system of law in contrast to Common law, well, you'd be incorrect in asserting that said Virtues are held aloft under Common law while trampled under Civil law. European legal systems generally respects those virtues.

If you were talking about civil law in contrast to criminal law, well, then yeah, of course there's no Presumption of Innocence, double jeopardy etc. there by its very nature. (Due process is still respected and maintained though.)

[Gravlen]

This is untrue, at least when it comes to Civil law. Presumption of innocence, fair trial and due process are all important aspects of Civil law.

When the defendant is accused of Protestantism, Witchcraft or Communism, they are automatically guilty according to Canon Law.

Why are you talking about Canon law?

[Galborg]

Category mistake: Civil Law has 2 different meanings.

In that post, I applied CL1 = an entire system of Law derived from Canon Law ie Papal church Law, used in Europe etc.

CL2 is a sub-faction of Common Law used in Britain etc. Criminal cases must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Civil cases are when people make a contract to exchange goods, money, services, duties etc; such cases are proven on the Balance of Probabilities.

I'm more confused now... If you were talking about Civil law as a system of law in contrast to Common law, well, you'd be incorrect in asserting that said Virtues are held aloft under Common law while trampled under Civil law. European legal systems generally respects those virtues.

If you were talking about civil law in contrast to criminal law, well, then yeah, of course there's no Presumption of Innocence, double jeopardy etc. there by its very nature. (Due process is still respected and maintained though.)

CL1 = Civil Law definition One = an entire system of Law that usually applies in Europe and its colonies.
Common Law = a different, entire system of Law that usually applies in British Dominions.
CL2 = Civil Law definition Two = a sub-faction of Common Law to deal with contracts etc.

Why are you talking about Canon law?

Because Civil Law 1 derives from Canon law. And under Canon Law, Defence Attorneys for Protestants, Jews, Witches, Communists etc are liable for prosecution.

[Page]

Why is it that people are always more fixated on the ethics of a lawyer defending a guilty client than that of a prosecutor enforcing oppressive laws?

[Gravlen]

I'm more confused now... If you were talking about Civil law as a system of law in contrast to Common law, well, you'd be incorrect in asserting that said Virtues are held aloft under Common law while trampled under Civil law. European legal systems generally respects those virtues.

If you were talking about civil law in contrast to criminal law, well, then yeah, of course there's no Presumption of Innocence, double jeopardy etc. there by its very nature. (Due process is still respected and maintained though.)

CL1 = Civil Law definition One = an entire system of Law that usually applies in Europe and its colonies.
Common Law = a different, entire system of Law that usually applies in British Dominions.
CL2 = Civil Law definition Two = a sub-faction of Common Law to deal with contracts etc.

Yes, that's clear. What's unclear is why you're under the wrongful impression that CL1 tramples on due process, presumption of innocence etc. It most certainly does not.

Why are you talking about Canon law?

Because Civil Law 1 derives from Canon law. And under Canon Law, Defence Attorneys for Protestants, Jews, Witches, Communists etc are liable for prosecution.

And while both Canon law and Roman law has influenced both Civil law and Common law, both Civil law and Common law are vastly different from Roman law and Canon law.

So again, why are you talking about common law when you decry how Civil law is trampling the virtues of due process, presumption of innocence etc?

Are you under the delusion that defence attorneys are liable for prosecution for defending certain groups under the Civil law system, or that the concept of fair trials aren't of the utmost importance?

[Katganistan]

Everyone is entitled to legal representation.

[Germany in Pajamas]

Why is it that people are always more fixated on the ethics of a lawyer defending a guilty client than that of a prosecutor enforcing oppressive laws?

Because prosecutors don't enforce laws, the police do. Prosecutors present the case in a criminal trial on behalf of the government. I don't imagine a prosecutor could effectively do his or her job if they believed the cases they were presenting were unjust.

[Pubix712]

No matter what the litigant has done, he is not legally guilty until and the prosecutor has offered enough evidence to persuade a judge or jury to convict. However, the defense lawyer may not lie to the judge by specially stating that the defendant did not accomplice something the attorney realizes the respondent did.