Lawyers only Defend the Innocent - Gem of a Posting - Unbelievable !!

[scroobal]

http://www.singsupplies.com/showpost.php?p=376746&postcount=62

I came across this gem and I thought it deserves its own thread. This poor chap is not aware what goes in the real world.

"The case of a good lawyer "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent" to set free an innocent party is not in the same category as a good debater. The reason is obvious - the good lawyer follows his conscience, guided by what he believes is morally RIGHT. He would not take up the case if he think his client is guilty. Even if he takes up the case, he would advise his client to plead for leniency then fight it out."

 

[commoner]

haha,,,, this guy probably watches too much legal tv series,,,, lawyer objective is to win cases, and when he can get a killer acquitted of murder or the maximum payout for his client, he is a damn good lawyer.

A moral lawyer? haha,,,, then you will never understand why lawyers and politicians are ranked with the vipers, and even then, the vipers felt insulted

 

[heartlander]

http://www.singsupplies.com/showpost.php?p=376746&postcount=62

I came across this gem and I thought it deserves its own thread. This poor chap is not aware what goes in the real world.

"The case of a good lawyer "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent" to set free an innocent party is not in the same category as a good debater. The reason is obvious - the good lawyer follows his conscience, guided by what he believes is morally RIGHT. He would not take up the case if he think his client is guilty. Even if he takes up the case, he would advise his client to plead for leniency then fight it out."

Thank you SO MUCH scroobal for highlighting this. I keep trying to explain to him you cannot go to a courtroom and say a lawyer is some white knight in shining armour just because he set free a supposedly innocent guy.

 

[Alamaking]

Lawyers are scumbags, 2nd is property agent? LOL

 

[scroobal]

I was stunned and had to read it again. After the second read, I went back to read the whole thread just to see if I missed the context. Either our lawyers gullible or the judges have hanged all innocent people if his loogiv prevails.

I saw your exchange and it was interesting. Looks like he is not aware what debating does or serves.

Thank you SO MUCH scroobal for highlighting this. I keep trying to explain to him you cannot go to a courtroom and say a lawyer is some white knight in shining armour just because he set free a supposedly innocent guy.

 

[kingrant]

http://www.singsupplies.com/showpost.php?p=376746&postcount=62

I came across this gem and I thought it deserves its own thread. This poor chap is not aware what goes in the real world.

"The case of a good lawyer "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent" to set free an innocent party is not in the same category as a good debater. The reason is obvious - the good lawyer follows his conscience, guided by what he believes is morally RIGHT. He would not take up the case if he think his client is guilty. Even if he takes up the case, he would advise his client to plead for leniency then fight it out."

He should ask the Old Man. He learnt early on that if he didnt give up being a lawyer, he would be defending terrorists. So either he truly had a conscience or he felt politics was really his calling,not law.

Of course, the rest is history. I wonder would Singapore have been better off if he had stuck to law.

 

[heartlander]

He should ask the Old Man. He learnt early on that if he didnt give up being a lawyer, he would be defending terrorists. So either he truly had a conscience or he felt politics was really his calling,not law.

Of course, the rest is history. I wonder would Singapore have been better off if he had stuck to law.

Thank you for bringing this up. My grasp of Singapore history isn't very good so please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't LKY strategically use his lawyer skills to help Lim Chin Siong and therefore gain some political experience and mileage? And then turned his back on LCS some years later and kicked him out? Does Seee3 still want to determine a lawyer's moral character by the cases he takes??

 

[QXD]

Sounds a lot like rabid PAP supporter Ace Kindred Chong

http://www.singsupplies.com/showpost.php?p=376746&postcount=62

I came across this gem and I thought it deserves its own thread. This poor chap is not aware what goes in the real world.

"The case of a good lawyer "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent" to set free an innocent party is not in the same category as a good debater. The reason is obvious - the good lawyer follows his conscience, guided by what he believes is morally RIGHT. He would not take up the case if he think his client is guilty. Even if he takes up the case, he would advise his client to plead for leniency then fight it out."

 

[kingrant]

Thank you for bringing this up. My grasp of Singapore history isn't very good so please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't LKY strategically use his lawyer skills to help Lim Chin Siong and therefore gain some political experience and mileage? And then turned his back on LCS some years later and kicked him out? Does Seee3 still want to determine a lawyer's moral character by the cases he takes??

Yes and no.

Yes, Old man defended LCS to gain political capital and power base with the powerful unions under LCS. In fact, if I am not mistaken, during the Hock Lee bus riots, a detective was set on fire and killed. Old Man had defended rogues like those who killed the policeman. He knew it was too much, so he quit law.

No, I was not referring to LCS actually so I am not saying that LCS was a terrorist.

 

[heartlander]

Yes and no.

Yes, Old man defended LCS to gain political capital and power base with the powerful unions under LCS. In fact, if I am not mistaken, during the Hock Lee bus riots, a detective was set on fire and killed. Old Man had defended rogues like those who killed the policeman. He knew it was too much, so he quit law.

No, I was not referring to LCS actually so I am not saying that LCS was a terrorist.

Yes... by and large, lawyers are just glorified hired guns. Even the supposedly "good" ones. In the old days they would have hired bounty hunters. Yep, I wasn't implying that you meant LCS was a terrorist.

 

[scroobal]

Good point.

Sounds a lot like rabid PAP supporter Ace Kindred Chong

 

[scroobal]

Old man acted for those who murdered an off duty British serviceman at the heights of the Maria Hertogh riots and got all them acquitted.

Thank you for bringing this up. My grasp of Singapore history isn't very good so please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't LKY strategically use his lawyer skills to help Lim Chin Siong and therefore gain some political experience and mileage? And then turned his back on LCS some years later and kicked him out? Does Seee3 still want to determine a lawyer's moral character by the cases he takes??

 

[kingrant]

Old man acted for those who murdered an off duty British serviceman at the heights of the Maria Hertogh riots and got all them acquitted.

Thanks bro. I think that you have got the facts.

 

[Frankiestine]

" the good lawyer follows his conscience, guided by what he believes is morally RIGHT. He would not take up the case if he think his client is guilty. Even if he takes up the case, he would advise his client to plead for leniency then fight it out."

He got to be kidding, a good lawyer will drop you the minute he knows you can't pay up....

 

[FuckSamLeong]

http://www.singsupplies.com/showpost.php?p=376746&postcount=62

I came across this gem and I thought it deserves its own thread. This poor chap is not aware what goes in the real world.

"The case of a good lawyer "capitalising on the weakness of the opponent" to set free an innocent party is not in the same category as a good debater. The reason is obvious - the good lawyer follows his conscience, guided by what he believes is morally RIGHT. He would not take up the case if he think his client is guilty. Even if he takes up the case, he would advise his client to plead for leniency then fight it out."

Subash Ananda would immediately reach for his bottles of medication if he were to read this.

I don't have the resources for the exact quote, scroobal probably would. Subash Ananda once said something along the line that if a lawyer were to choose whether to take a case to defend an accused based on his personal judgement of guilt or innocence, then everyone in the system of the Law may as well pack up and go home.

With regard to debate competitions. Just because there has to be a victor, does not the points scored that resulted in a victory, new chapters of the Gospel made. Whether he believes in his own spin is irrelevant.

Only in leisure discourse can we agree to disagree without consequences.

 

[scroobal]

I suspect the entire law fraternity would be falling over this one. And you are right about Subash.

Very well said about debating.

Subash Ananda would immediately reach for his bottles of medication if he were to read this.

I don't have the resources for the exact quote, scroobal probably would. Subash Ananda once said something along the line that if a lawyer were to choose whether to take a case to defend an accused based on his personal judgement of guilt or innocence, then everyone in the system of the Law may as well pack up and go home.

With regard to debate competitions. Just because there has to be a victor, does not the points scored that resulted in a victory, new chapters of the Gospel made. Whether he believes in his own spin is irrelevant.

Only in leisure discourse can we agree to disagree without consequences.

 

[Ramseth]

Technically, the lawyer has to advise the client based on the truth. So, e.g. if the client tells the lawyer that he has swindled someone, the lawyer is supposed to defend the client on all legal rights in the interest of the client based on the truth.

However, the client may also reject such advice and requests the lawyer to help fabricate a story not based on the truth. It's supposedly illegal for a lawyer to do that, but there's the lawyer-client privilege that all that's said by a client to a lawyer are confidential and inadmissible as evidence in court.

In practice, very few clients would confess to their lawyers unless the relationships are very close-knit. Most guilty accused would fabricate their own stories if they want to get off scot-free and lie to their lawyers. The lawyers would most probably know or at least suspect. They won't probe for the truth and would just take the story as the client tells it and work on it. Professionally, they're not required to find out the truth. That's the job for the police, prosecution and judiciary.

 

[scroobal]

Thanks for that, I am sure people will appreciate it. Technically 100% correct.

Just one point. The human mind kicks in even for a lawyer. Even before the client is ready to spill the beans, lawyers in general will lay out the consequence and possible defences for 2 main possible scenarios (gulity) and (not guilty) in a nutshell so that they client does not put himself in a hole. Clients are then advised to clear their mind and tell the "whole story".

Technically, the lawyer has to advise the client based on the truth. So, e.g. if the client tells the lawyer that he has swindled someone, the lawyer is supposed to defend the client on all legal rights in the interest of the client based on the truth.

However, the client may also reject such advice and requests the lawyer to help fabricate a story not based on the truth. It's supposedly illegal for a lawyer to do that, but there's the lawyer-client privilege that all that's said by a client to a lawyer are confidential and inadmissible as evidence in court.

In practice, very few clients would confess to their lawyers unless the relationships are very close-knit. Most guilty accused would fabricate their own stories if they want to get off scot-free and lie to their lawyers. The lawyers would most probably know or at least suspect. They won't probe for the truth and would just take the story as the client tells it and work on it. Professionally, they're not required to find out the truth. That's the job for the police, prosecution and judiciary.

 

[kingrant]

A good debater or a good lawyer is one who whilst believing that a thing is black can yet actually convince others it is white. A pro-lifer at heart advocating abortion; a repressive tyrant at heart championing democracy. Yea, even faking an orgasm.

So a person who can compartmentalise his thinking and not get schizophrenic.
Of course, if done too long, can become mad.

Like MM --Mad Man.

 

[scroobal]

Nicely put bro.

A good debater or a good lawyer is one who whilst believing that a thing is black can yet actually convince others it is white. A pro-lifer at heart advocating abortion; a repressive tyrant at heart championing democracy. Yea, even faking an orgasm.

So a person who can compartmentalise his thinking and not get schizophrenic.
Of course, if done too long, can become mad.

Like MM --Mad Man.