Usually laying on a huge pile of cash, nice and soft if a bit rustly.
I'd shoot the lawyer and then the lock.As the old joke goes, you're in a locked room with a ravenous crocodile, a rabid tiger and a lawyer and you have a gun with just two bullets. What do you do? Shoot the lawyer. Twice!
https://www.pmengineer.com/articles/85102-100-reasons-why-i-hate-lawyers
I know of no other case in the history of the US that has lasted anywhere near this long as an 'active investigation'. Is this a British eccentricity..?
Well....I asked almost a year ago....wonder if the reasons have changed, but why is this case still in front of the public ,press ,and police? I know of no other case in the history of the US that has lasted anywhere near this long as an 'active investigation'. Is this a British eccentricity..?
You are quite right. We the unwashed get angry when someone gets off on a technicality. The trouble is that the politicos (all of them, this is not party politics) never seem to get round to reducing the technical loopholes, in fact they simply pass extra laws instead of simplifying the existing ones.Re the earlier comments about lawyers.
However oily we think the lawyers, however repulsive their clients, however unspeakable their crimes - those of us who live under the adversarial system undermine the position of the defence lawyer at our utter peril.
Re the earlier comments about lawyers.
However oily we think the lawyers, however repulsive their clients, however unspeakable their crimes - those of us who live under the adversarial system undermine the position of the defence lawyer at our utter peril.
Would that be A Man for All Seasons? Originally written I believe by Antony Munday. ,An obvious quotation perhaps but it fits. A single damp* cat biscuit for the person who identifies play and author
Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
* cause of dampness unknown
Robert Bolt...?Would that be A Man for All Seasons? Originally written I believe by Antony Munday. ,
"his lawyer is doing a pretty good job of getting him off on a technicality "
Things like that really make my blood boil.
I don't know how such defence lawyers can sleep at night.
Re the earlier comments about lawyers.
However oily we think the lawyers, however repulsive their clients, however unspeakable their crimes - those of us who live under the adversarial system undermine the position of the defence lawyer at our utter peril.
Kind of reminds me of the BBC's recent adaptation of Alex McBride's Defending the Guilty, which I very much enjoyed; starring the excellent young actor Will Sharpe (who also did a very splendid job in Giri/Haji). Also Sarah Langford's, In Your Defence: Stories of Life and Law - which I read at the beginning of this year.
To be honest, I think the idea of saving 'genuine innocents', although clearly extremely desirable, is a bit of a red herring in regard to the main point of the defence's role in an adversarial system - which is to test the Crown's case to the most exhaustive degree possible. I would argue that the safest convictions are those where it is the defence, and not the prosecution, that has put up the most effective fight.
As Mikefule says above - the defence represents a single cog in a larger machine, without which that machine fails entirely.
(I find the law absolutely fascinating - and in another lifetime...who knows?)
I'm not saying that's the role as defined by law, I'm saying that's why he continued to do it long after it had become an undesirable job.
This exactly- and I suspect this is one of the reasons why the terrible incident is so clouded in the minds of the public, and has misdirected investigations.I don't have a foot in any camp in the McCann case, it is surrounded with so many peculiar circumstances.
The lawyers I was referring to are the ones that spend fifteen minutes in consultation with you then print off a page with eight lines on it and charge £200. I did get two copies thoughRe the earlier comments about lawyers.
However oily we think the lawyers, however repulsive their clients, however unspeakable their crimes - those of us who live under the adversarial system undermine the position of the defence lawyer at our utter peril.
Half a... soggy biscuit... thanks...@Cochise and @Mythopoeika - you win half a damp car biscuit each!
One of my oldest friends is an ex-defence lawyer. The job is not conducive to family life.
For several years he'd take phone calls in the dead of night to drive to the most odious districts and ensure that (to be honest) the detritus of society got the best defence he could manage. He was frequently despondent about how light a sentence the most obviously guilty were handed, but he did the job because, every now and again, through carelessness, laziness or non-reflective bias, the police made mistakes; and while those he 'got off' were frequently guilty of a string of other offences, there were genuine innocents caught up in the system by pure flukes of circumstances who had done nothing whatsoever wrong.
He did the job for them and the salary (which, In my opinion, was rubbish for the work demanded).
This small category, I might add, were often the victims of malicious unfounded accusations and 'straight' members or friends of crooks who looked guilty by association.
Half a... soggy biscuit... thanks...
One wonders how much of the perception of our various adversarial courts is driven by their portrayal on telly. The many police and lawyer dramas offer a false perspective of the reality of police and legal work, which can thereby bias the participants, particularly jurors, on the proper procedures and processes around the actual workings of the trial, including evidence presentation, the reliability of witnesses, and causing general bias against the defendant (unless she's really pretty).
Kind of reminds me of the BBC's recent adaptation of Alex McBride's Defending the Guilty, which I very much enjoyed; starring the excellent young actor Will Sharpe (who also did a very splendid job in Giri/Haji). Also Sarah Langford's, In Your Defence: Stories of Life and Law - which I read at the beginning of this year.
To be honest, I think the idea of saving 'genuine innocents', although clearly extremely desirable, is a bit of a red herring in regard to the main point of the defence's role in an adversarial system - which is to test the Crown's case to the most exhaustive degree possible. I would argue that the safest convictions are those where it is the defence, and not the prosecution, that has put up the most effective fight.
As Mikefule says above - the defence represents a single cog in a larger machine, without which that machine fails entirely.
(I find the law absolutely fascinating - and in another lifetime...who knows?)
Edit: Hutchinson's near classic, Is Eating People Wrong?: Great Legal Cases and How they Shaped the World was part of my lockdown reading list. Don't say there's nothing Fortean about the law.
(And the answer is...well, it kind of depends.)