Lawyers have no morality
-
so what the Fuck do you expect. if they don't earn money to feed their family, then they also have no morality.Originally posted by chronicles:They help to defend the accused even though if they know he is guilty just for the sake of money.
so you are trying to say that the governments of the world is trying to promote immorality? because every Fucking civilized country in this world has lawyers that fight for their clients. trust me, if you commit a crime, you would hope you get the most immoral lawyer. -
So what do you propose, knowing that the best system out there is already judge-preside trial over jury system.true...but what makes evidence?what could be evidence for the prosecution might not be what is is protrayed to be. [/quote]
Yes. So its up to defence lawyer to dispute that fact. Moreover, PP has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And its up to the judge to weigh both side of evidences and conclude the case.
The truth speak for itself.
[quote]Originally posted by Xcert:That's the ideal case...and we all know that the judges are all human...have feelings and so on...so I think its pretty difficult to be neutral.
Come to think of it...its pretty scary to have ur fate based on just one person's decision...dun U think so?Originally posted by redstone:For example, you accidently killed someone.
You can be charged with murder or manslaughter. Murder can be death sentence. Manslaughter have a lighter sentence.
What would you rather have? The lighter sentence, of course. And who's gonna help you achieve that?
The lawyer who defends you!
A better lawyer can only help to the extend of mitigating. Between Murder and Manslaughter, if the defence can prove its case that the accused indeed commit the crime in a moment of folly, well he has the benefit of the doubt. If not ...Originally posted by FireIce:tts why it does not matter who right who wrong.....
but which side got a better lawyer.....
even it's some obvious case, the accused has the right to defend....
for lighter sentence......
Uphold justice.Originally posted by BlUe G@rF|eLd:At the very beginning, when they enter the lawyer world, they hve to struggle with many nonsensical case 1st to build their repu up wan.. Most kant pass tat stage. To uphold justice? Or to lose a job?
-
Let's say out of a burst of anger, you gave someone a punch in the face.
But the force of your punch caused him to hit his head against something hard. He died.
So based on the 1st post, is it fair to lock you up for life without a trial?
Would you defend yourself?
Would you get a lawyer to save your life? -
I have numbered your queries.Originally posted by redstone:Let's say out of a burst of anger, you gave someone a punch in the face.
But the force of your punch caused him to hit his head against something hard. He died.
1.So based on the 1st post, is it fair to lock you up for life without a trial?
2.Would you defend yourself?
3.Would you get a lawyer to save your life?
Q1. No.
Q2. Yes
Q3. Yes.
From your example, although the victim died by concussion but the crux lies in whether,
Did the accused punch the victim with intent of murder?
The force of the punch?
Witnesses?
Any relationship between both of them?
What spark the argument?
Any many many more.
To sum up, its justice is fair. -
becos lawyers dui ren (*ren = client), bu dui shi (*shi = morality) one.
-
well, you injure him with no intention of killing him. of course defend myself, i will get best lawyer to save my lifeOriginally posted by redstone:Let's say out of a burst of anger, you gave someone a punch in the face.
But the force of your punch caused him to hit his head against something hard. He died.
So based on the 1st post, is it fair to lock you up for life without a trial?
Would you defend yourself?
Would you get a lawyer to save your life? -
from what i heard from my teachers last time, jury system usually comprises of ordinary folks like u n me.Originally posted by iveco:Trust me, sometimes the only sane people at a trial are the jurists, but we have none of them in Singapore.
Some, before the hearing, have already thought that the defendant ought to be shot.
no matter how the defendant's lawyer puts the evidence n etc across, they still think that way.
so that, is a major flaw in itself.
imagine there is a trial. n the jury consists of racists.
before the hearing begins, they're thinkin, aiya just shoot him! let him die! doesn matter cos he isn our race.
see the picture? -
What are the pros and cons of the judge and jury systems?
-
Same as the moderator of any forums, can't please everyone.Originally posted by shade343:What are the pros and cons of the judge and jury systems?
-
At the expense of people's life sometimes?Originally posted by coffeeortea:so what the Fuck do you expect. if they don't earn money to feed their family, then they also have no morality.
so you are trying to say that the governments of the world is trying to promote immorality? because every Fucking civilized country in this world has lawyers that fight for their clients. trust me, if you commit a crime, you would hope you get the most immoral lawyer. -
No doubt you have a valid point, but Singapore's system places way too much power in the hands of the prosecutors. The lines between the legislature and the judiciary are not clear.Originally posted by shinta:from what i heard from my teachers last time, jury system usually comprises of ordinary folks like u n me.
Some, before the hearing, have already thought that the defendant ought to be shot.
no matter how the defendant's lawyer puts the evidence n etc across, they still think that way.
so that, is a major flaw in itself.
imagine there is a trial. n the jury consists of racists.
before the hearing begins, they're thinkin, aiya just shoot him! let him die! doesn matter cos he isn our race.
see the picture? -
I am not trying to propose anything...just lamenting about us being victims of circumstances.Originally posted by TooFree:So what do you propose, knowing that the best system out there is already judge-preside trial over jury system.
-
I'm ignorant in this area. Pray, tell me how Singapore's system places way too much power in the hands of the prosecutors?Originally posted by iveco:No doubt you have a valid point, but Singapore's system places way too much power in the hands of the prosecutors. The lines between the legislature and the judiciary are not clear.
Your statement that 'the lines between the legislature and the judiciary are not clear' is interesting (read: vague/baseless). Kindly elaborate. -
Well, a high court judge can get demoted just because he ruled in favour of an opposition politician in the 1980s. The case found its way to the Privy Council, who sided with the defendant. From then on, the Council were no longer the last avenue of appeal. You can easily guess who the judge, defendant and plaintiff were.Originally posted by JLennon:Your statement that 'the lines between the legislature and the judiciary are not clear' is interesting (read: vague/baseless). Kindly elaborate.