Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by The Scribe, Feb 25, 2008.
Attacking a twelve year old girl is how Hillary deals with crisis.
From the article:
"Rodham, legal and child welfare experts say, did nothing unethical by attacking the child's credibility - although they consider her defense of Taylor to be aggressive.
"She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate," said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School's Center for Children, Families and the Law. "He was lucky to have her as a lawyer ... In terms of what's good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn't Hillary's problem." ...
"I have to understand that she was representing Taylor," she said when interviewed in prison last fall. "I'm sure Hillary was just doing her job." ...
"Most damaging to the case, the retired detective says, was the girl's "infatuation" with the teenage boy, which she refused to admit, leading to serious inconsistencies in her statements about the incident."
I hear Hillary stuck her tongue out at a boy one time who called her a name when she was in kindergarten also.............hmmmmmmm if that don't beat all!!!!
While everyone in this country has a right to a vigorous defense, my stomach turns at the thought of defending a person accused of raping a little girl.
My stomach also turns at the thought that this is used as political cannon fodder.
The "bulldog" approach (as cited in the article) used by Hillary and other defense lawyers is precisely one of the main reasons rape victims refuse to report their crimes. This, too makes my stomach turn.
The only thing about this thread that hasn't made my stomach turn is Brother Bob's reply! :laugh:
At the same time, my stomach turns at the thought of a person falsely accused of rape not to have a vigorous defense. While I personally believe that more than 90% of rape claims are absolutely true, I know that there are a few victims who make mistakes (DNA evidence has cleared more than a few accused rapists) and there are certain mentally-ill/morally-corrupt women who make false accusations to destroy men they don't like. I've seen this twice in my life (fortunately not directed toward me).
That being said, I have no tolerance for rapists or child predators. I have shockingly little compassion for them even though my Christian calling obliges me to somehow work toward their reconciliation with God. A good friend of mine works for the FBI developing evidence to convict child pornographers and some of the stories he has told me keep me awake at night. :tear:
As distasteful as it sounds, ethics required she put up a vigorous defense for her client. That's what defense attorneys do.
Whether or not she relished the role or reveled in her victory, I can't say.
Exactly. It would be unethical to "hold back" anything from a client's defense.
It maybe the lawyers right to defend their client by man's laws. But, if they are defending someone that is guilty they are wrong. But, we all know money motivates most of them not true justice.
Luke 11:52 (KJV)
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
Weren't the lawyers of Jesus' day known as Scribes?
Since in these United States one is considered innocent unless proven guilty at the time someone is being defended he/she is not guilty.
Pharisees, Scribes wrote things down. Doesn't matter though. I like the name scribe for another reason.
Scribe: a writer or author, esp. a journalist.
Also, because people on Christian sites might bring up what you just did. :tongue3:
Yes, man's law. If they know they are guilty, they are liars and you know where all liars will end up?
The lawyer who defends liars will also go to hell.
Just for the sake of historical accuracy:
The word “scribe” is the English translation of the Greek word “Grammateis”, which means “student of the scriptures.” Scribes were men whose primary occupation was writing out copies of the Jewish Scriptures and teaching the people what the law said.
Because they copied the Old Testament books, they were familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures and were respected in society for their literacy and knowledge. The scribes provided teaching that was the religious and moral backbone for the Jewish people during the time of Jesus. Because of their role, there were often addressed as, “Teacher.”They were trusted as professional interpreters and as ones who could judge individual cases as they related to Jewish law. Scribes were, therefore, also trusted as lawyers within Jewish society. As the scribes were the most learned individuals on the fine details of following Jewish law, their duties also consisted of deciding on specific questions of the law in individual cases. Scribes had no authority in themselves, but rather they continually deferred to the authority of other scribes and traditions to support their positions. The scribes were some of Jesus’ most adamant opponents. In their minds, the Messiah who the Old Testament Scriptures spoke about did not seem to match up with who Jesus was.
The lawyer does not know that the person is a liar until the jury pronounces the person guilty.
Carpro and Baptist Believer, I do not disagree with you, per my previous post. A lawyer must vigorously defend their clients. Now there are some attorneys who do seek out the vile to defend them, and they get some sort of kick doing that. I know two such folks in my town. Buzzards...pure buzzards. Most attorneys do not deserve the bad rap they seem to get as a whole.
I agree 100%.
Thanks for the clarification!
I believe I indicated much the same thing thing with this:
"Whether or not she relished the role or reveled in her victory, I can't say."