This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is there any reason you need a law degree for what you do? Or is it 98% just learning the processes of how cases work?
Wish I could share my stories. I’ve got a few but not Dui’s. But don’t want to give away things that could be traced. I’ve always hired an attorney. Usually thru a friends parent who had a friend. One time I was a bit rowdy at a high profile bar but they let me in the next day so I knew no one would show up at the date but paid a lawyer 1k to show up for me. Probably get a little more service paying but I’d assume you’re correct that you get the same thing from a public defender. Everyone should honestly go to jail once or twice it’s an interesting experience if you’re the kind of person who likes getting an inside view. I’d also assume the attorney somewhat enjoyed giving me a play-by-play as a slightly more intelligent client.
I wish their was some way we could get rid of the trial penalty, but there are too many cases and it would clog the system when most of the time your guilty and we just need to do the process.
Edit: at some point I’ve seen things where people advertise themselves as former prosecutors/law enforcement. I always assume that by paying them you get a better deal because you’re paying for the current prosecutors exit strategy.
No, law degrees and law schools are practically useless in my opinion. The most they helped with is probably the writing classes that teach you the intricacies and minutiae of legal writing. I see degrees/schools as just the apparatus of the profession's cartel in restricting the supply. Specialization matters a ton, and there's no way to quickly inject the experience of knowing the difference between on paper versus in practice. All that comes with on the job experience.
One possible way we could return to the norm of jury trials could be to relax evidence standards. Something as simple as playing a video requires witness testimony to "authenticate" the recording, which means someone either present at the scene or whoever is the "custodian" of the video tapes. It feels needlessly stringent.
Advertising yourself as a former prosecutors/LEO is just a way to showcase how much respect those professions get from the public, and adds a nod about knowing how the system works. I know plenty of former prosecutors who are now defense attorneys; some immediately flame-out because they can't deal with clients, and the rest tend to be stellar at their job.
More options
Context Copy link
Heh, divorced of context this could apply to many areas of legal practice.
It is probably true that you could just train somebody on a script and that would suffice for like 70% of cases, but there are always those odd/edge cases where there's no substitute for experience and knowledge + being able to think on your feet.
This is usually implying (probably correctly) that they have the inside connections to get things handled more quickly and they know exactly how the prosecutors are trained and how their internal guidelines for sentencing and such are set up so they can very accurately tell you what the prosecutor is going to offer and your odds of actually going to jail.
For the last part I was implying that there is an implicit bribe. I assume the local lawyer has those connections after doing a few hundred cases. But by hiring the former cop/prosecutor the current prosecutor knows you are paying one of their people.
They would certainly have the connections. Curious if paying into the system and the revolving door has any effect.
I've seen very little evidence to suggest that there's a 'bribery' aspect actually going on. I'm sure there's some places where there is such corruption, but it likely isn't the rule.
Its indeed very natural for someone who quits being a prosecutor for the private sector to go into criminal defense work, those skills and knowledge don't directly transfer anywhere else.
I remember one time I heard Ken Griffin use identical language as Jerome Powell introduced 2 days later. Citadel has paid Yellen etc for speeches when she was out of office.
Bribe might be too strong. But I always assumed hiring the guy just out of the prosecutors office offered a benefit more than he knows the system.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link