The Nature of Debate

[liamconnor]

I was not sure where to post this, but this was the only subforum that I have frequented here.

I was telling a lawyer friend of mine about my debates here, and about some of the frustrations I have. He was familiar with debate forums of other topics. He said part of my frustration is that Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

He used his own profession to make a point. The one example that struck me he had borrowed from a movie. (spoiler alert).

In a movie where Denzel Washington flies a plane, he saves the passengers in a skillful crash-landing. He was high as a kite, which showed up in the post tests. His lawyer knew this. He investigated and saw that the equipment used to test D.W. was out of date. D. at this time had already confessed to his attorney that he was on cocaine, and his attorney knew it. It didn't matter; the equipment was out of date. Therefore, inadmissible.

His attorney (my friend went on) was not interested in the truth. He was interested in defending a client, guilty or not. "That" my friend said, "was good attorney work". He went on to explain why it was "good" attorney work, and I see some point to it. But he compared this forum to that kind of work. "Forums like yours aint about finding truth. Theyre about invalidating the opposing party." He said a few other things but what stuck out to me was "no one cares whether something is true or false on a debate; they care about invalidating the opposing party by any means possible."


Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

[Divine Insight]

Laymen frequently misunderstand a lawyer's duty and his legal ethics. Even some lawyers fail to understand, particularly when they sound off in an area they have little experience in.

I won't argue the technical legality of what you are saying here. Especially any lawyers that accept and remain accepting of the fact that they are to defend the defendant. However, I would question the claim that defense lawyers are not permitted to refuse to become the defense lawyer of a particular person, or that they cannot request being taken off a case that they can no longer support in good conscience.

If what I have just suggested above is not true, then I am very glad that I never became a defense lawyer. IMHO, (and I grant that this is entirely a subjective opinion) but if lawyers are obligated by "Legal Ethics" to defend criminals they know are guilty, then "Legal Ethics" is totally different from any "Morality based on human compassion and well-being".

In other words, we can even turn to a Moral Basis offered by Sam Harris in his book "The Moral Landscape" and argue that even on a purely secular logical and scientific basis for morality, it would be immoral to act in a manner that contributes to setting a dangerous person free to commit even more atrocities against innocent humans.

In other words, if defense lawyers are bound by "legal ethics" to defend dangerous criminals they have sufficient reason to believe are guilty with no possible way to bow out, then to become a defense lawyer would require a person to abandon even "Secular Morality" as defined by Sam Harris.

[JoeyKnothead]

I was not sure where to post this, but this was the only subforum that I have frequented here.

I was telling a lawyer friend of mine about my debates here, and about some of the frustrations I have. He was familiar with debate forums of other topics. He said part of my frustration is that Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

He used his own profession to make a point. The one example that struck me he had borrowed from a movie. (spoiler alert).

In a movie where Denzel Washington flies a plane, he saves the passengers in a skillful crash-landing. He was high as a kite, which showed up in the post tests. His lawyer knew this. He investigated and saw that the equipment used to test D.W. was out of date. D. at this time had already confessed to his attorney that he was on cocaine, and his attorney knew it. It didn't matter; the equipment was out of date. Therefore, inadmissible.

His attorney (my friend went on) was not interested in the truth. He was interested in defending a client, guilty or not. "That" my friend said, "was good attorney work". He went on to explain why it was "good" attorney work, and I see some point to it. But he compared this forum to that kind of work. "Forums like yours aint about finding truth. Theyre about invalidating the opposing party." He said a few other things but what stuck out to me was "no one cares whether something is true or false on a debate; they care about invalidating the opposing party by any means possible."


Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

The irony of offering a work of fiction to complain how folks don't seek truth

[1213]

Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

Many times it seems to be true; especially when same matters are repeated even when they have been refuted many times.

However, I am not here to win. My goal is to offer another point of view and way to see for example Bible without contradiction. If I manage to do that well and help people to understand, that is good enough for me. If people make wrong decisions with incomplete or false knowledge that is problem for me, not that if they make wrong decision with correct information.

[Danmark]

Laymen frequently misunderstand a lawyer's duty and his legal ethics. Even some lawyers fail to understand, particularly when they sound off in an area they have little experience in.

I won't argue the technical legality of what you are saying here. Especially any lawyers that accept and remain accepting of the fact that they are to defend the defendant. However, I would question the claim that defense lawyers are not permitted to refuse to become the defense lawyer of a particular person, or that they cannot request being taken off a case that they can no longer support in good conscience.

This is completely different from your original point. BTW, I'm sure some of these nuanced differences may seem insignificant to one outside of the profession.

No one HAS to take a case. In fact he should not take a case unless he can zealously represent his client. That would be unethical. Just as it would be unethical to refuse to take a notorious case because it would endanger his standing in the community.

Atticus Finch, the lawyer character in To Kill a Mockingbird lived up to this highest calling of the legal profession when he defended a 'Negro' accused of rape in a small Southern Community. The ACLU famously lived up to these high ideals in real life when they [many of them Jews] defended the free speech rights of Nazi scumbags to march in Skokie, Ill. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... _of_Skokie

I am proud to be a lawyer. I am VERY proud to be a criminal defense lawyer. I am exceedingly proud to have been able to rise above my personal feelings and defend accused murderers and child molesters. The latter defendants, almost no one wants to represent, despite the fact some are innocent and falsely accused.

If lawyers were allowed to decide who deserved representation, the legal system would collapse, more innocent people would be falsely convicted, and the Constitution would exist on paper only.

[Danmark]

Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

Many times it seems to be true; especially when same matters are repeated even when they have been refuted many times.

However, I am not here to win. My goal is to offer another point of view and way to see for example Bible without contradiction. If I manage to do that well and help people to understand, that is good enough for me. If people make wrong decisions with incomplete or false knowledge that is problem for me, not that if they make wrong decision with correct information.

One of my goals is to expose faulty and illogical thinking (along with having my own errors exposed (should such an unlikely event transpire )) Another is to demand that arguments be supported with facts.

[Hamsaka]

I was not sure where to post this, but this was the only subforum that I have frequented here.

I was telling a lawyer friend of mine about my debates here, and about some of the frustrations I have. He was familiar with debate forums of other topics. He said part of my frustration is that Debate forums typically do not care about truth. They care about winning.

He used his own profession to make a point. The one example that struck me he had borrowed from a movie. (spoiler alert).

In a movie where Denzel Washington flies a plane, he saves the passengers in a skillful crash-landing. He was high as a kite, which showed up in the post tests. His lawyer knew this. He investigated and saw that the equipment used to test D.W. was out of date. D. at this time had already confessed to his attorney that he was on cocaine, and his attorney knew it. It didn't matter; the equipment was out of date. Therefore, inadmissible.

His attorney (my friend went on) was not interested in the truth. He was interested in defending a client, guilty or not. "That" my friend said, "was good attorney work". He went on to explain why it was "good" attorney work, and I see some point to it. But he compared this forum to that kind of work. "Forums like yours aint about finding truth. Theyre about invalidating the opposing party." He said a few other things but what stuck out to me was "no one cares whether something is true or false on a debate; they care about invalidating the opposing party by any means possible."


Question. Is that a fair description of forums in general, or this one in particular?

Folks seem roughly divided by the beliefs they have about what constitutes 'truth'.

There's those who 'already know' what the truth is, and there are those who don't claim to know the truth and are actively looking for it.

The difference between those is The individual's definition of truth'.

Sometimes,'truth' is whatever seems to be the most flattering to the ego, or confirms what is already believed to be true. Truth isn't a personal belief.

[Divine Insight]

If lawyers were allowed to decide who deserved representation, the legal system would collapse, more innocent people would be falsely convicted, and the Constitution would exist on paper only.

Why?

I'm not saying that lawyers should not defend anyone. In fact, all I suggested is that if a lawyer chooses not to represent someone they should be permitted to decline.

In fact, even when people are guilty and they confess, lawyers can still help them to obtain the minimal sentence required by law. In fact, that very scenario has just played out for my cousin's husband. He murdered my cousin. Brutally beat her to death with a jack handle in his basement and then took the body and hid it. He then washed down his basement to hide the blood. He ground the soles off his boots in case he left any tracks where he hid the body. This murder may not have been premeditated, but one whale of a lot of thought and effort went into trying to cover it up after the fact.

His lawyer convinced him to plead guilty to 3rd degree murder and confess to temporary insanity.

My cousin's family is outraged because in his "confession" he actually blames his wife for driving him to this state of temporary insanity and he acts like it was all her fault.

In any case, this lawyer didn't have to defend that this guy was innocent.

So your claim that the legal system would break down if lawyers refused to defend guilty people who want to plea "not guilty" when the evidence that they did it is overwhelming.

And don't tell me about "innocent people". Because they wouldn't come into play here. Surely there would be lawyers who would consider a case where someone is claiming to be innocent and it can't be proven otherwise.

I'm not suggesting that all lawyers should run and hide from a case just because the evidence appears to be overwhelming against their client. As long as their is room for reasonable doubt, then that's all a lawyer needs to feel justified in presenting the strongest case possible for innocence.

By they way you say,

I am proud to be a lawyer. I am VERY proud to be a criminal defense lawyer. I am exceedingly proud to have been able to rise above my personal feelings and defend accused murderers and child molesters. The latter defendants, almost no one wants to represent, despite the fact some are innocent and falsely accused.

And you certainly should be. In fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having done that if you honestly believe that there exist any possibility at all that these guys might have potentially been falsely accused.

In fact, as long as you believe that possibility exists, then you would qualify for "my objection".

The ONLY thing I'm objecting to is when the lawyer knows (or is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt) that the person he or she is defending is guilty and continues to defend them anyway.

I'll tell you right now that if I were a lawyer and I helped a child molester that I was convinced was guilty get off I most certainly wouldn't be proud of myself for that.

If there was reasonable doubt then that's fine. In fact, isn't that a lawyer's TRUE DUTY - to show reasonable doubt?

All I'm suggesting is that if you can't do that with honesty because you don't personally believe there is any reasonable doubt then you shouldn't even be the guy's lawyer in the first place.

[Danmark]

If lawyers were allowed to decide who deserved representation, the legal system would collapse, more innocent people would be falsely convicted, and the Constitution would exist on paper only.

Why?

I'm not saying that lawyers should not defend anyone. In fact, all I suggested is that if a lawyer chooses not to represent someone they should be permitted to decline.

In fact, even when people are guilty and they confess, lawyers can still help them to obtain the minimal sentence required by law. In fact, that very scenario has just played out for my cousin's husband. He murdered my cousin. Brutally beat her to death with a jack handle in his basement and then took the body and hid it. He then washed down his basement to hide the blood. He ground the soles off his boots in case he left any tracks where he hid the body. This murder may not have been premeditated, but one whale of a lot of thought and effort went into trying to cover it up after the fact.

His lawyer convinced him to plead guilty to 3rd degree murder and confess to temporary insanity.

My cousin's family is outraged because in his "confession" he actually blames his wife for driving him to this state of temporary insanity and he acts like it was all her fault.

In any case, this lawyer didn't have to defend that this guy was innocent.

So your claim that the legal system would break down if lawyers refused to defend guilty people who want to plea "not guilty" when the evidence that they did it is overwhelming.

And don't tell me about "innocent people". Because they wouldn't come into play here. Surely there would be lawyers who would consider a case where someone is claiming to be innocent and it can't be proven otherwise.

I'm not suggesting that all lawyers should run and hide from a case just because the evidence appears to be overwhelming against their client. As long as their is room for reasonable doubt, then that's all a lawyer needs to feel justified in presenting the strongest case possible for innocence.

By they way you say,

I am proud to be a lawyer. I am VERY proud to be a criminal defense lawyer. I am exceedingly proud to have been able to rise above my personal feelings and defend accused murderers and child molesters. The latter defendants, almost no one wants to represent, despite the fact some are innocent and falsely accused.

And you certainly should be. In fact, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having done that if you honestly believe that there exist any possibility at all that these guys might have potentially been falsely accused.

In fact, as long as you believe that possibility exists, then you would qualify for "my objection".

The ONLY thing I'm objecting to is when the lawyer knows (or is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt) that the person he or she is defending is guilty and continues to defend them anyway.

I'll tell you right now that if I were a lawyer and I helped a child molester that I was convinced was guilty get off I most certainly wouldn't be proud of myself for that.

If there was reasonable doubt then that's fine. In fact, isn't that a lawyer's TRUE DUTY - to show reasonable doubt?

All I'm suggesting is that if you can't do that with honesty because you don't personally believe there is any reasonable doubt then you shouldn't even be the guy's lawyer in the first place.

I stand by what I wrote, which meets most of your objections, including that a lawyer does NOT know his client is factually guilty. The lawyer is not a god. He is not omniscient.

But let us suppose the impossible, that a lawyer actually knows in a godlike way that his client is factually guilty. Let us suppose every lawyer knows when his clients are guilty. Under your proposal the 'guilty' clients would never be represented because no lawyer would represent them. What would happen then?

Among other things, there would be no trials and all these supposed guilty defendants would have to be released, their cases dismissed, because they had no one to represent them because all the lawyers were cowards.

[Divine Insight]

I stand by what I wrote, which meets most of your objections, including that a lawyer does NOT know his client is factually guilty. The lawyer is not a god. He is not omniscient.

That's certainly not among my objections. To the contrary I made it clear that I was speaking of Reasonable Doubt, that hardly requires omniscience. In fact, isn't that what a lawyer technically needs to be demonstrate to the jury to get an acquittal?

But let us suppose the impossible, that a lawyer actually knows in a godlike way that his client is factually guilty. Let us suppose every lawyer knows when his clients are guilty. Under your proposal the 'guilty' clients would never be represented because no lawyer would represent them. What would happen then?

This is an unrealistic hypothetical, because if lawyers could know things in a godlike way then we wouldn't even need courts at all. We could just ask the lawyers who's guilty and who isn't.

Among other things, there would be no trials and all these supposed guilty defendants would have to be released, their cases dismissed, because they had no one to represent them because all the lawyers were cowards.

Cowards?

Are you saying that godlike omniscient lawyers who know that someone is guilty and refuse to argue otherwise in front of a non-omniscient jurors should be labeled a "coward"?

I would label them "Totally Righteous" and "Highly Moral" individuals who stand on what they know to be true.

The only reason we need courts in the first place is precisely because we're not omniscient. Our legal system is only required because of our mortal failings.

~~~~~~~

Also I would like to add here, that even the very concept of "Reasonable Doubt" means different things to different people. What one person might accept as reasonable doubt another may not. In fact, the lawyer's very job is to convince the jury to accept what the lawyer himself believes to be reasonable doubt in a particular case.

What I'm saying actually makes perfect sense. If the lawyer is not even convinced that there exists any reasonable doubt, then how in the world could he try to argue a case for reasonable doubt to the jury? The lawyer would basically need to lie or make stuff up, or at the very least suppress the truths that he knows would eliminate any reasonable doubt at least as far as he is concerned.

Hypothetical Case in point:

Let's say that I'm innocent of a crime. I am appointed a lawyer who doesn't see it. He or she is not convinced of the "reasonable doubt" of my innocence, but has taken the case and is willing to argue for me to the jury for reasonable doubt anyway.

Would I want this person to be my lawyer? Absolutely NOT!

No way would I want a lawyer who isn't even convinced that there is a reasonable doubt that I'm guilty trying to argue some make-shift false excuses to the jury why they should believe that there is reasonable doubt that I am guilty.

I'd be in extremely bad shape if that were the case.

Give me a lawyer who actually sees why there is reasonable doubt that I am guilty so they can argue that to the jury.

I don't want a lawyer who is going to make up stuff in an effort to make a case for reasonable doubt] when the lawyer him or herself doesn't even believe that to be the case.

He or she could make up totally baloney stuff that the prosecution could easily shoot down, and then where would I be?

I'd be a convicted innocent man precisely because my lawyer couldn't even see where their really was reasonable doubt that I committed the crime.

So, no, I wouldn't even want a lawyer representing me if he or she isn't already convinced of the reasonable doubt for why I may not be guilty.

I think for a lawyer to represent someone who they are not convinced has a reasonable doubt of being not guilty, isn't doing anyone any favors, especially the person they are representing.

[marco]

One of my goals is to expose faulty and illogical thinking (along with having my own errors exposed (should such an unlikely event transpire )) Another is to demand that arguments be supported with facts.

That's a worthy aim, Danmark, and one expressed by some of my former students who are now lawyers. As Juvenal said: "Quis iudices iudicabit?" - Who will be the judge of the judges? ..... especially the ones operating in the European Court of Appeal.