Deep13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 02:53 PM
Original message |
Last day as appellate prosecutor. |
|
The Court of Appeals has new judges that are not letting the DA get away with the kind of crap he is used to getting away with. Since he can't be wrong about anything, it must be my fault that we keep getting reversed on appeal. Plus it doesn't help that he has a glass ego and that I don't kiss his ass. He doesn't like hearing that a dog case is a dog case and thinks I'm giving up to easily when I point out what really ought to be obvious to anyone with a law degree. It also hasn't escaped my attention that that I'm the only "out" atheist in this office. (He's an Evangelical and most of the staff either is also or else is Catholic.) Seven and a half years of late nights, weekends, holidays, weight gain and anxiety and he smiles while he stabs me in the back.
So, I've been banished to the civil division for four days a week until the end of June when funding for that position expires. Then I am leaving this corrupt profession and going to graduate school to become a history teacher, hopefully at the college level. Honestly, I'm glad it is over, but I still can't forgive the insult. I wanted to leave anyway, but wanted to do so on my own terms. Frankly, I simply don't believe in justice anymore. What's the difference between justice and revenge? When the state does it, it is justice. When a person does it, it's revenge. That's all. Except for a few isolated cases where it really is necessary to keep dangerous people away from society, I am not doing any social good here. We are just taking the evil that the defendants commit and adding our own evil by sending them to a state-created hell.
My in-laws who are loaded have promised to help finance the DA's opponent in the '12 elections.
"mea est ultio et ego retribuam in tempore ut labatur pes eorum iuxta est dies perditionis et adesse festinant tempora" Deut. 32:35 Vulgate
|
struggle4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 02:59 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Congratulations on having plotted your escape |
|
What manner of history do you plan to study?
|
Deep13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
The only kind I do not find fascinating is the kind I don't yet know about.
|
struggle4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. If you're going for the PhD you'll need to specialize, and the sooner the better |
|
If you're just going for the MA you can be a bit less focused
I spent much of my spare time one year about a decade ago reading Seldon Society translations of early English law: I mean the period from shortly after the invasion by "Norman the Bastard" (quoting! here one of the texts c. 1100) until the chaotic breakdown of serfdom around the cities. It was fascinating
|
Deep13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. Yes, I need to talk to someone at the college... |
struggle4progress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Meh! The folk at the college don't know anything! You can get all the academic advice |
|
you really need from the anonymous strangers here in teh Lounge!
|
Kali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
Sanity Claws
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 03:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I also am no longer practicing law because I don't think very highly of the legal system.
|
The Velveteen Ocelot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 03:07 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Do you remember the Critical Legal Studies movement? |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 03:12 PM by The Velveteen Ocelot
It turned up in law schools and legal scholarship in the late '70s and early '80s -- the "Crits" basically claimed (if you can wade through the dense, jargon-filled writings of Roberto Unger and Duncan Kennedy) that the law is indeterminate and not based on fixed principles and ultimately is merely the tool of the ruling classes. At the time (I was a law student then) I didn't buy any of it, believing naively that there were inviolate principles of "justice." However, I now believe the "Crits" were absolutely correct. I left the practice of law about 10 years ago, thoroughly disillusioned. The question almost always turns out to be, "How much justice can you afford?"
|
Deep13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
9. I'm aware of that concept, but not of the movement. nt |
MicaelS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-31-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
20. I disagree with you and the OP on "justice". |
|
As a layman, my opinion is that too many lawyers give the impression that they believe there is no such as a a person truly being guilty of an offense. Because with true guilt that means punishment for the offense, and I really get the impression many lawyers don't believe in the concept of punishment. That old saw about "the best defense possible" is just rhetoric cloaking the fact lawyers always want to win, and don't care about true guilt or innocence.
|
The Velveteen Ocelot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-31-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #20 |
21. Quite the opposite is true. |
|
A lawyer's job is not to determine guilt or innocence; that's the function of the judge and jury. The lawyer's job is to represent his client. If you're the prosecutor your client is the state. If you're representing a person accused of a crime your job is to make the state prove its case, since in a criminal case the state has the burden of proving all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecutor has to have a reasonable belief, based on the facts known to him/her, that the defendant is guilty, because otherwise he would be prosecuting in bad faith. The defendant's lawyer, on the other hand, does not necessarily care whether his client is guilty, since he is merely forcing the state to meet its burden of proof -- although if the defense lawyer knows for a fact that the client is guilty he can't suborn perjury (allow the client to lie).
In a just legal system these opposing forces would be relatively equal, and the result should be a determination of the truth. Guilty people would be convicted and innocent ones acquitted. Unfortunately, too often it's poor defendants who are convicted and rich ones who are acquitted, irrespective of the truth. Judges have agendas; juries are easily swayed by bullshit, public defenders are overworked; and rich folks get all the "justice" they can afford. Guys like Bernie Madoff go to jail only if they stir up enough public outrage.
|
gizmonic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 03:54 PM by gizmonic
|
Deep13
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I'm glad too, but I'm also pissed off at the betrayal.
|
Kali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 05:28 PM
Response to Original message |
|
sorry things are bad and you have to leave under shitty circumstances, but congrats on the changes and good luck with the new direction!
|
PassingFair
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 08:48 PM
Response to Original message |
13. There is nothing on earth sexier than a non-practicing lawyer. |
|
Good luck and fuck'em if they can't take a joke!
|
Lady President
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. Can I quote you on that? |
|
My love life could use all the help it can get. ;)
|
PassingFair
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 11:45 PM by PassingFair
Work it, Sister!
:toast:
|
rug
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 11:10 PM
Response to Original message |
14. Sorry about your job, happy about the new judges. |
|
I'm trying a case nexr month in which the Appellate Division reversed a 50 year sentence and conviction based on a typed confession signed by a man who is illiterate.
You know, you can still use your skills to defend poor people and people being railroaded. The state has no scarcity of resources or advocates. You'd likely work twice as hard, but it won't be for a state-sanctioned scumbag.
I hope the new year brings you peace.
|
elleng
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
Kali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-30-10 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
Heidi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-31-10 02:26 AM
Response to Reply #14 |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:41 AM
Response to Original message |