2016 Presidential General Election Thread

[vixnix]

Is the criminal system broken because most people working within it are motivated primarily by money, social status and power?

Probably.

Is Billary any different?

Probably not.

[Elphenor]

Uh am I supposed to watch all ten episodes of that now just for the point that there was allegedly a false positive

I mean I never denied that they existed

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Is the criminal system broken because most people working within it are motivated primarily by money, social status and power?

Probably.

Is Billary any different?

Probably not.

It's not the motivations that really matter here it's that a fair trial entails having lawyers that will, for reasons of justice, objectively and to the best of their ability defend even those that are presumed to be guilty

If the law has a loophole in it, blame the law, not the lawyer

[vixnix]

The law will always have loopholes. Whether they're exploited is up to lawyers. So it's appropriate to blame them.

It's sort of sad that you don't think false positives are rife in the U.S. and that the legal system only serves those who can afford to buy its favour.

[Elphenor]

?

My whole point is that they'd be worse if lawyers just decided they were gonna do a shit job of protecting clients that look guilty

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by vixnix

Yeah. I guess that's the litmus test of a person though. Whether you do the job you're asked to do, even if you know it's a terrible thing to do, or whether you quit your job.

Everyone gets free counsel. If public defenders quit their jobs when having to defend a scumbag, all of the people who are innocent or otherwise deserve no/light sentences would never have a lawyer. It's the price of offering everyone a defense attorney.

[reprise85]

del

[vixnix]

She believed he was guilty of raping a 12 year old but negotiated a plea where he only spent one year in jail, by undermining the trauma of the victim.

That's not just defending a client to the best of your ability. That steps over the line into scumbag lawyer territory, where the will to win usurps the will to use the justice system to mete out actual justice.

The Washington Free Beacon recently obtained audio from a 1980s interview with Clinton in which she concedes some admittedly disquieting information about how she was able to seize on loopholes to minimize the sentence of the suspect, 41-year-old Thomas Alfred Taylor. Though he faced 30 years to life in prison, Clinton negotiated a plea deal that sentenced him to just one year in county jail and four years of probation.

In a sworn affidavit aiming to coerce a psychiatric evaluation of the sixth-grade victim, Clinton during the case nearly 40 years ago called into question the girl's emotional stability, arguing she had exhibited "a tendency to seek out older men and engage in... fantasizing." She added, citing a child psychology expert that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant, are even more prone to such behavior."

But in the recording, Clinton indicated she believed her client was indeed guilty. Heard laughing, she said the polygraph test he managed to pass "forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs."

[vixnix]

I can't believe you guys are defending her actions and the U.S. criminal justice system in general....

[reprise85]

I'm totally not defending the U.S. criminal justice system. But justice is about more than just one person. He is entitled to a competent lawyer, and without such a lawyer someone could get their sentence overturned on the basis of ineffective counsel. Also, there are cases where everyone - including someone's lawyer - could think one guilty when it is just not so. It looks very obvious to us that this happened and it was him, however where do you draw the line that someone is so guilty they don't even deserve a defender? Who decides such a thing? I would never be a defense attorney because of cases like this, and most people feel the same way. Yet, it is a job that needs to be done for our system to function. And at this point, as fucked up as the system is, it's the best one we have.

[reprise85]

I'm possibly going to be doing forensic psychology including assessing competence of defendants and at some point I'm going to have to show that someone who committed a crime is sane and know he or she will get a long prison sentence, even if I like the person or think there's mitigating circumstances but the court doesn't agree. So I'm not responsible for their ultimate fate but I could possibly stop it in a way others couldn't. That sucks a lot. But it's necessary, because there are people who aren't competent and shouldn't have a trial. You can't have a system that works for the later group without it 'working' for the former group, too.

It's possible and maybe probable that Clinton went beyond what many lawyers would have, but I find it hard to hold it against her campaign because it doesn't much matter to her being a competent president.

[vixnix]

That's fair enough, as long as you know you're electing someone who is prepared to work within the system to the best of her ability, rather than make difficult personal choices to subvert a system whose main beneficiaries are the rich elite.

It's no different to electing Obama.

[reprise85]

I mean yeah, of course. What other choice do I have exactly? uhhhhh Donald Trump, yeah no

I voted for Sanders but wtf else am I going to do

As for the issue of the court case w/r/t the rape of a 12 year old where the defense attorney knew the client to be guilty, I really do think that we have unscrupulous lawyers as both prosecutors and defense attorneys and that that is a consequence of the system we have. We do not know of a better way, but hopefully most people end up in a trial with scrupulous lawyers on both ends. Who knows the statistics in that case? But we can't blame the govt for terrible sentencing laws and pressured confessions and things like that and then also blame defense attorneys for doing everything they can on the opposite end. The whole system is fucked up but is definitely unfair to the accused in most cases, w/r/t things like bail and shitty appointed attorneys and ridiculous sentencing laws. Sex crimes are different and should be treated differently probably, but I don't know how we can do that.

I don't have any answers but I understand the problem likely comes from the system first, with defense lawyers reacting to it and learning techniques to subvert it because it is often so unfair to their clients. Of course public defenders themselves are part of the system, which makes it even more complicated.

[vixnix]

Well yeah, completely. If Billary lost to Trump, I mean that's the kind of event that creates a new date format. BT = Before Trump.

I only bothered to comment because apparently if you root for The Bern you're just another Sanders zombie. Because c'mon, he's nowhere near as experienced and professional as Billary. Which is true. But when the system stinks and Sanders's whole campaign is based on that reality, having someone who has worked the system for their entire professional career isn't exactly a dream alternative candidate.

[reprise85]

on the other hand if trump gets elected i'm pretty sure our country would have riots and shit, maybe leading to the overthrow of the government or at least a radical change in our election process in the future. which is what we actually need in the long run. *not a trump endorsement

[MyOneAndOnly]

Vix is a Kiwi living down under telling ppl in the new world who they should vote for

[vixnix]

I am not. It's simpler to call me an antipodean telling others who I would vote for. I'm not inferring that my choice is the best.

Obviously, the only people who can claim that their choice is the best, are those who chose The Bern.

https://memeexplorer.com/cache/opengraph/1153.jpg

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by reprise85

on the other hand if trump gets elected i'm pretty sure our country would have riots and shit, maybe leading to the overthrow of the government or at least a radical change in our election process in the future. which is what we actually need in the long run. *not a trump endorsement

All those agit-prop goons are Soros funded. Just like all the false flag shootings, there is no natural energy driving these efforts. It's paid mercs posing as activist for a payday. In case you haven't noticed, the push back has been stronger. But thanks for revealing how you think the religious left would react to what our elections (in theory) our there for -- peaceful transitions of government.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

?

My whole point is that they'd be worse if lawyers just decided they were gonna do a shit job of protecting clients that look guilty

Speaking of that guilty look:



Reporter: If someone gives you $700,000 and you give them a sweet trade-deal, is there any conflict of interest?

The Hilderbeast: cackle, cackle, cackle...







The real problem has been the press and the zombied ideologues largely giving the Clinton's a pass on this stuff for decades. Now they've metastasized into the thing the must stay in power, if for nothing else than to keep a lid on all their crimes.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

All those agit-prop goons are Soros funded. Just like all the false flag shootings, there is no natural energy driving these efforts. It's paid mercs posing as activist for a payday. In case you haven't noticed, the push back has been stronger. But thanks for revealing how you think the religious left would react to what our elections (in theory) our there for -- peaceful transitions of government.

The religious left? I think it would involve all kinds of people.

The things Trump stands for and says he'll do will tear the country apart and change how the international community sees the country for the worse. Of course people react to that. He's not even a politician and has no vision for how his policies will have domino effects. Like bombing the shit out of the middle east, increasing torture, the stupid wall, deporting illegals, not allowing muslims in the country... how could Americans just let this shit go on? They can't, and they won't.

[vixnix]

I guess, because it's a dick move.

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by Poots

Oh yeah half of the white people I know claim to have Indian blood. It's all a load of horseshit. The Indians are all dead Elfinor. Or on some shitty reservation drinking wood alcohol. You're not a fucking Indian, you're just some white little shit who wants to pose as an Indian to beef up your privileged white resume so you can claim some sort of victim-hood that you have never experienced.

wtf is this shit

There are a lot of white settlers who had children with natives. My grandmother on my Dad'd side looked exactly how you'd picture a native.

[Elphenor]

Well my great grandmother literally lived on a reservation

There are more native features than just "darker skin"

[Elphenor]

No because my great grandmother was 1/2

[Elphenor]

Edit: 1/16th math

And I don't identify as anything but "white" because I'm so removed from it culturally

Point is there is a lot of native heritage in mostly southern white people stop being dumb

[Elphenor]

Also the tribe you're from is important if my heritage was in a different tribe 1/16th is sometimes even enough as far as they are concerned

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Poots

I can see the argument for the other things about Trump, but why is his call to deport illegals so controversial? Isn't that the law? Isn't that the job of the president to enforce the law?

Because these people who have been here for decades and in some cases have American children should not just be ripped away from everything they know. Laws should not be absolutes in these cases; there is morality and there is law, and they are not always the same thing. I am not saying we should not have immigration laws and enforce them, but we should not start by deporting people who live basically as citizens in all but papers. Give these people citizenship, and revise the laws for future immigrants, and follow those laws. Don't pull the rug out of people who are already here.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Poots

You're not an Indian, Elfiner. I'm sorry. Grandma just had a tan.

He doesn't identify as an Indian. But surely if his great grandmother was 1/2, she was indeed an Indian. Saying she just had a tan is fucked up, asshole

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Poots

That is exactly what you are saying.

I'm saying we should enforce them, but not before we fix the problems that have come up while we have not enforced them, and look at them closely w/r/t modifying them for the future.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Poots

It's not fucked up it's a joke. Lighten up.

Somehow your jokes seem to be racist a lot (and xenophobic in general). I wonder why that is?