Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-10-2019, 10:06 AM   #1041
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coys1882 View Post
Serious question. Why don't we have Crown prosecutors and defenders? Why aren't they appointed by the court for both sides and get the experience of working on both sides of the courtroom as needed?
The defenders are supposed to be on the side of the accused. Having them employed by the government that is trying to convict them would lead to all sorts of issues.
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Old 05-10-2019, 10:13 AM   #1042
MBates
Crash and Bang Winger
 
MBates's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coys1882 View Post
Serious question. Why don't we have Crown prosecutors and defenders? Why aren't they appointed by the court for both sides and get the experience of working on both sides of the courtroom as needed?
Some jurisdictions have a public defender system but not sure if that is exactly what you are meaning.

I suppose the short answer is that an accused person has a choice of counsel. Subject to issues of financing when it comes to people who require legal aid, it is especially important for a person accused by the government not to have to be represented by a government appointee / employee.

Imagine how that might be playing out differently for Admiral Norman right now...

Many of my colleagues have done a stint as a Crown prosecutor and will advertise that as an advantage in their marketing. I don’t personally see ‘former Crown’ as an asset I would want for my defence lawyer but I am sure some do.
MBates is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2019, 10:19 AM   #1043
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha_Q View Post
As for the O’Brien and Liknes families not being put “through the whole process again” (blankall), I assure you, they are being put through this again. As a juror in this case - and in fear of turning this into a woe-is-me post – I can tell you that when I woke up this morning to Garland’s face on my phone, I was instantly taken back to the details of this trial and the associated nightmares. I was immediately anxious, nauseous and in the words of my wife “visibly upset.”
Firstly, I will admit that I am a lawyer, who does do some criminal defence work. However, I do refuse to do any cases that involve any serious crimes, as I feel that I am biased. I just don't believe that many of the accused are innocent, and I could never use a technicality to defend someone.

That being said, I do respect the people who do take on these difficult positions. Although there is no doubt that what the victims and their families go through is beyond reprehensible, it doesn't mean that we should do away with due process either. There is no way to apply due process sparingly, as by definition, it must be applied equally to all.

And also respect the jurors like yourself. One of the benefits of being a lawyer, means never having to go through what you've gone through. Thank you for your perspective on this.
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Old 05-11-2019, 07:51 PM   #1044
Snuffleupagus
Franchise Player
 
Snuffleupagus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coys1882 View Post
Serious question. Why don't we have Crown prosecutors and defenders? Why aren't they appointed by the court for both sides and get the experience of working on both sides of the courtroom as needed?
You're a really trusting person aren't you?
Snuffleupagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2019, 09:58 AM   #1045
Coys1882
First Line Centre
 
Coys1882's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus View Post
You're a really trusting person aren't you?
Not really no - I think I have some faith that professionals who have some sort of integrity or code of ethics will more often than not live up to that. If all lawyers, crown or defense, believe that innocent until proven guilty and every person deserves the best defense they can get (not afford) - shouldn't that be good enough to say justice could be equal for everyone?
Coys1882 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2019, 10:00 AM   #1046
Coys1882
First Line Centre
 
Coys1882's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
The defenders are supposed to be on the side of the accused. Having them employed by the government that is trying to convict them would lead to all sorts of issues.
Why can't the government not be in the business of convicting people but provide justice which is fair and equal for all.

I guess I have trouble with the ideology of "justice is blind" and "innocent until proven guilty" be unwavering tenets but also acknowledge that money will always buy you the best defense.
Coys1882 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2019, 10:45 AM   #1047
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coys1882 View Post
Why can't the government not be in the business of convicting people but provide justice which is fair and equal for all.

I guess I have trouble with the ideology of "justice is blind" and "innocent until proven guilty" be unwavering tenets but also acknowledge that money will always buy you the best defense.
What you're asking about is funding for lawyers. The government does provide finding for low income people via legal aid.

But yes, it's far from a perfect system, as rich people will typically be able to afford better lawyers. I don't see any way around that. If you forced all criminal defence lawyers to be publicly employed, in addition to the conflict of interest I stated, most wouldn't do it. The mindset for most criminal defence lawyers is that they are entrepreneurs and working against the governmen, in favor of civil rights. Also most would not fit into a structured government position with office politics, structured hours, structured retirement, etc... From my experience there is a distinct personality difference between defence lawyers and prosectors.
blankall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2019, 10:48 AM   #1048
transplant99
Fearmongerer
 
transplant99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coys1882 View Post
Why can't the government not be in the business of convicting people but provide justice which is fair and equal for all.

I guess I have trouble with the ideology of "justice is blind" and "innocent until proven guilty" be unwavering tenets but also acknowledge that money will always buy you the best defense.
Its "the government" that you are defending yourself against when all is said and done.

Way way to much conflict of interest for a system that relies on independence for fair and equal representation.
__________________
transplant99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:55 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021