Friday night ethics

[StellaGrace727]

Since there is a different crowd in The PLayground, I'm re-posting to reach more members.

I come up with these little conundrums on occasion. So what do you say? I find this to be a very ethical and intelligent group of sexual deviants, so it makes me extra curious?

Issue #1

Hypothetically, could you, as a defense attorney, defend an admitted rapist? Why or why not?

Secondly, does your membership to this site color that opinion in any way?

 

[fire_breeze]

Since there is a different crowd in The PLayground, I'm re-posting to reach more members.

I come up with these little conundrums on occasion. So what do you say? I find this to be a very ethical and intelligent group of sexual deviants, so it makes me extra curious?

Issue #1

Hypothetically, could you, as a defense attorney, defend an admitted rapist? Why or why not?

Secondly, does your membership to this site color that opinion in any way?

I'll bite.

Short answer for both is no.

Long answer is still no. If I was a defence attorney, I'm still obligated to follow my conscious and rape, along with murder, is two unforgivable blacks in my world of grey.

My ethics isn't coloured by wherever I chose to spend my time. It's based on careful consideration of who I am and the value I place on humanity.

 

[StellaGrace727]

Thank you for an honest answer. I'm not trying to troll or cause discord. I'm genuinely curious.

 

[akaSol]

Since there is a different crowd in The PLayground, I'm re-posting to reach more members.
I come up with these little conundrums on occasion. So what do you say? I find this to be a very ethical and intelligent group of sexual deviants, so it makes me extra curious?
Issue #1
Hypothetically, could you, as a defense attorney, defend an admitted rapist? Why or why not?
Secondly, does your membership to this site color that opinion in any way?

@ StellaGrace ; RE: Issue 1#

1 : As a defense attorney, I could defend an admitted rapist given the vagary of your statement:
Yes whom ever is a "self" admitted rapist - to wit it is an unproven fact that the defendant had been sexually violent yet alone in this instance.
Adding to that a possibility that the defendant could be a psychological incompetent prone to admitting to guilty crimes which they did not commit.

2 : My standing in a bulletin board , containing adult themes and sexual innuendo bears no relevances to such a case , or any case.

Sol
{ Hope that is what your looking for }

 

[janeyl]

Since there is a different crowd in The PLayground, I'm re-posting to reach more members.

I come up with these little conundrums on occasion. So what do you say? I find this to be a very ethical and intelligent group of sexual deviants, so it makes me extra curious?

Issue #1

Hypothetically, could you, as a defense attorney, defend an admitted rapist? Why or why not?

Secondly, does your membership to this site color that opinion in any way?

wondering why my choosing to be here might colour my opinion in any way? are you implying that it might mean I was more tolerant of a crime like rape?

 

[StellaGrace727]

Yep. That's what I was looking for.

Except for pointing out the fact that I had a proper legal jargon mishap. It's after 5 on Friday. My spell checker is off for the weekend.

 

[fire_breeze]

Thank you for an honest answer. I'm not trying to troll or cause discord. I'm genuinely curious.

No worries. Just a very honest answer, that's all.

 

[StellaGrace727]

wondering why my choosing to be here might colour my opinion in any way? are you implying that it might mean I was more tolerant of a crime like rape?

Apologies. That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was that I've found that the more liberal people tend to be more willing to defend, which is not the same as condoning the crime.

Defending is giving someone a fair trial. Regardless of their guilt or innocence.

 

[fire_breeze]

Apologies. That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was that I've found that the more liberal people tend to be more willing to defend, which is not the same as condoning the crime.

Defending is giving someone a fair trial. Regardless of their guilt or innocence.

Again, I believe that this depends on the person. Even the most liberal of persons have a hard limit of which they are not willing to cross, defending or not.

 

[Peaches1990]

Since there is a different crowd in The PLayground, I'm re-posting to reach more members.

I come up with these little conundrums on occasion. So what do you say? I find this to be a very ethical and intelligent group of sexual deviants, so it makes me extra curious?

Issue #1

Hypothetically, could you, as a defense attorney, defend an admitted rapist? Why or why not?

Secondly, does your membership to this site color that opinion in any way?

I could not defend an admitted rapist. While I agree in principle that everyone is entitled to a defence and realise that defence lawyers do indeed enable admitted rapists to escape conviction because they are very accomplished in their field, I struggle with the ethics side of it. It is not ethical, & the circumstances surrounding the rape have to be taken into consideration, and everyone will have a different opinion on that, but I know that my conscience would prevent me from helping somebody guilty of such a crime to be absolved of it.

Anyways, anyone who knows me knows that if I were a barrister I'd be prosecuting

 

[NattyBumppo]

Attorneys face ethical conundrums every day. Under our laws, every defendant is entitled to representation regardless of the heinousness of the crime.

Years ago, a real life situation was presented in one of our classes: A criminal visited a defense attorney because he had killed a young girl and hidden the body where no one could find it. The parents went public pleading for information as to the whereabouts of the child. The attorney, who was not retained by the killer, was moved by the parents' plight and, without divulging how he knew the location of the body, tipped off the authorities anonymously, thereby allowing them to discover the body.

Later -- and I don't recall exactly how -- authorities somehow figured out the identity of the killer by tracing the source of the tip to the attorney and then seeing who had visited the attorney. The killer was brought to justice and convicted. The attorney, because he had broken the attorney/client privilege, lost his law license.

If an attorney is a member of the federal trial bar, he or she can be ordered by the court to represent a defendant no matter how objectionable the crime or the criminal. When Timothy McVeigh was going to be tried, his original defense attorney had to beg and plead the court to be allowed to withdraw appointed because he knew too many of the victims.

Because one likes erotica that doesn't presuppose that one supports forceable rape. If I were a defense attorney, despite the fact I frequent Lit, I could represent him.

 

[StellaGrace727]

It was a generalization about the times I've heard this brought up. It's just difficult to get a large group of broad minded individuals in my experience.

 

[janeyl]

Apologies. That wasn't what I meant. What I meant was that I've found that the more liberal people tend to be more willing to defend, which is not the same as condoning the crime.

Defending is giving someone a fair trial. Regardless of their guilt or innocence.

I am aware of the definitions

so what's the reason for your curiosity?

 

[StellaGrace727]

I'm a paralegal. I just started working in criminal defense. I've only been in the field for about 3 years. The question came up.

 

[Peaches1990]

It was a generalization about the times I've heard this brought up. It's just difficult to get a large group of broad minded individuals in my experience.

Are you defining 'broad minded' as someone that would defend a rapist? I am confused. We are clearly broad minded here but you seem unsatisfied that we would not be happy to defend?!

 

[WakoJako]

Since there is a different crowd in The PLayground, I'm re-posting to reach more members.

I come up with these little conundrums on occasion. So what do you say? I find this to be a very ethical and intelligent group of sexual deviants, so it makes me extra curious?

Issue #1

Hypothetically, could you, as a defense attorney, defend an admitted rapist? Why or why not?

Secondly, does your membership to this site color that opinion in any way?

I couldnt no, i just cant try to get a guilty man innocent. Its not in my nature. I would be a terrible lawyer.

Has this changed my view? I suppose a little bit, as it has strengthen my realisation on just being yourself, and being honest is a good start.

 

[StellaGrace727]

Are you defining 'broad minded' as someone that would defend a rapist? I am confused. We are clearly broad minded here but you seem unsatisfied that we would not be happy to defend?!

Ok, you hit on exactly why I asked. I think I'm looking for a little reassurance that I'm not the only one in the world that doesn't have an ethical problem with defending someone that admitted to such a horrendous crime.

 

[janeyl]

I'm a paralegal. I just started working in criminal defense. I've only been in the field for about 3 years. The question came up.

I'm work in mental health but wouldn't ask the people here for advice about how to treat my service users.

we're not exactly a representative sample

 

[cowslinger64]

I'm work in mental health but wouldn't ask the people here for advice about how to treat my service users.

we're not exactly a representative sample

So we're only experts in being freaks and perverts or something?

 

[StellaGrace727]

I have a hard time getting and opinion out of anyone not working in the legal field due to my stupid gotta-prove-myself hours.

And anyone working in the field, specifically those who are or work for defense attorneys, are predisposed to saying "I'll defend anyone that can pay my retainer."

Not that money's a bad thing, if no one cared about money then we'd be up to our ears in public defenders and prosecutors and no one would be able to get a contract reviewed.

 

[newbiebabe]

I think if I had chosen this profession, it would be assumed that at some point in my career I would be defending a person who actually was guilty of the crime. As a defense attorney, it is my duty, my job to defend to the best of my ability regardless of my personal feeling about that person or the crime he had allegedly committed. So yes, if it were my chosen profession, I could defend him. My being on a site such as this has no bearing on how I do my job.

That said, I want to add that you make a great error in believing that just because one is on a site like this that they are "liberal" in their thinking of the way our society should be run. To be sexually open or liberal, if you will, does not preclude being conservative in other political and social matters.

 

[Peaches1990]

Ok, you hit on exactly why I asked. I think I'm looking for a little reassurance that I'm not the only one in the world that doesn't have an ethical problem with defending someone that admitted to such a horrendous crime.

Ok well maybe you should have pointed that out in the first place.

I don't think your willingness to defend has anything to do with being broad minded, I don't even think it is to do with defending someone that has committed a sexual offence. I think, but I might be wrong, that if you asked the same people here that are saying 'no' to defending rape, they would probably say no to child crimes, murder, torture etc, crimes that have nothing to do with sex.

Rape, more often than not, has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with power. Therefore, I am still struggling to equate why you think a forum of open minded people and their opinion on this has any relevance?!


Or am I missing the point?

 

[janeyl]

So we're only experts in being freaks and perverts or something?

not what I said. I put it clumsily. My first sentence was more pertinent than my second

 

[fire_breeze]

Ok, you hit on exactly why I asked. I think I'm looking for a little reassurance that I'm not the only one in the world that doesn't have an ethical problem with defending someone that admitted to such a horrendous crime.

This will probably help you with your reassurance:

Attorneys face ethical conundrums every day. Under our laws, every defendant is entitled to representation regardless of the heinousness of the crime.

Years ago, a real life situation was presented in one of our classes: A criminal visited a defense attorney because he had killed a young girl and hidden the body where no one could find it. The parents went public pleading for information as to the whereabouts of the child. The attorney, who was not retained by the killer, was moved by the parents' plight and, without divulging how he knew the location of the body, tipped off the authorities anonymously, thereby allowing them to discover the body.

Later -- and I don't recall exactly how -- authorities somehow figured out the identity of the killer by tracing the source of the tip to the attorney and then seeing who had visited the attorney. The killer was brought to justice and convicted. The attorney, because he had broken the attorney/client privilege, lost his law license.

If an attorney is a member of the federal trial bar, he or she can be ordered by the court to represent a defendant no matter how objectionable the crime or the criminal. When Timothy McVeigh was going to be tried, his original defense attorney had to beg and plead the court to be allowed to withdraw appointed because he knew too many of the victims.

Because one likes erotica that doesn't presuppose that one supports forceable rape. If I were a defense attorney, despite the fact I frequent Lit, I could represent him.

But, in the end, you have to live with yourself. If you don't have a problem with the situation, then I fail to see how getting reassurance would somehow impact or change what you personally believe.

 

[cowslinger64]

not what I said. I put it clumsily. My first sentence was more pertinent than my second

I know...



As for me...I could never be a defense attorney. Or a prosecuting one either, for that matter. I guess that precludes me from having to answer this question.