bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (02/18/86)
In article <266@imagen.UUCP> jay@imagen.UUCP (Jay Jaeckel) writes: >>[...] >I always thought courts were specifically intended to be slanted, in some >sense, in favor of the defendent: Due to the burden on the _plaintiff_ to >prove the defendent's guilt _beyond_a_shadow_of_a_doubt_, etc., etc. >[...] Unfortunately, Jay, this isn't how the courts work. This is a piece of fiction (propaganda) we were all fed growing up. The courts _sometimes_ make rulings that appear to reinforce this lie. The trial system as practiced in these here United States is nothing more than a gladiatorial combat system that uses persuasion in place of swords. The plaintiff/prosecutor does _not_ have to prove the defendant guilty beyond a shadow, etc, he merely has to _persuade_ the jury that the defendent is guilty. The more persuasive the lawyer is, the more successful he is, and the more money he gets for his services. The range of fees that you find lawyers asking is not what you would expect from workers in a service industry (which is what they purport to be), but rather more like that of artists, with the extremely highly-paid prima-donnas earning millions, down to the (relatively) poor souls that only make $100K or so. If you are wealthy enough, you can afford a lawyer that is good enough to get you off. If you aren't, you get to use a "public defender", which is usually an attorney either not good enough to make it on his own, or who is still a novice. --- "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your country can do to you!" --
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (02/19/86)
In article <620@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP writes: >The more persuasive the lawyer is, the more successful he is, and >the more money he gets for his services. The range of fees [is] >rather more like that of artists, with the extremely highly-paid >prima-donnas earning millions, down to the (relatively) poor souls >that only make $100K or so. Actually, the lower ranges are well below the official US poverty level. I suspect this is true of artists as well. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 1415) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@mimsy.umd.edu
mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) (02/20/86)
> >The more persuasive the lawyer is, the more successful he is, and > >the more money he gets for his services. The range of fees [is] > >rather more like that of artists, with the extremely highly-paid > >prima-donnas earning millions, down to the (relatively) poor souls > >that only make $100K or so. > > Actually, the lower ranges are well below the official US poverty > level. I suspect this is true of artists as well. > I agree. Incredible as it may seem, some lawyers work for minimum wages. I think there two problems. First, people read too many newspapers and watch too much television. The few lawyers that do make it big appear in headlines and whitewash the remainder. Secondly, for lawyers, there are too many law school graduates nowadays. Thus depressing pay. For those who can believe this, there are even doctors who make less than $20,000 per year. Mark Reina
suhina@kodak.UUCP (brian suhina) (02/21/86)
> In article <620@sigma.UUCP> bill@sigma.UUCP writes: > >The more persuasive the lawyer is, the more successful he is, and > >the more money he gets for his services. The range of fees [is] > >rather more like that of artists, with the extremely highly-paid > >prima-donnas earning millions, down to the (relatively) poor souls > >that only make $100K or so. > > Actually, the lower ranges are well below the official US poverty > level. I suspect this is true of artists as well. Any stats or references on the number of lawyers making "well below" the official US poverty level would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (02/24/86)
In article <510@mb2c.UUCP> mpr@mb2c.UUCP (Mark Reina) writes: >>>The more persuasive the lawyer is, the more successful he is, and >>>the more money he gets for his services. The range of fees [is] >>>rather more like that of artists, with the extremely highly-paid >>>prima-donnas earning millions, down to the (relatively) poor souls >>>that only make $100K or so. >> >>Actually, the lower ranges are well below the official US poverty >>level. I suspect this is true of artists as well. > >I agree. Incredible as it may seem, some lawyers work for minimum wages. >I think there two problems. First, people read too many newspapers and >watch too much television. The few lawyers that do make it big appear in >headlines and whitewash the remainder. Secondly, for lawyers, there are >too many law school graduates nowadays. Thus depressing pay. >[...] Okay, perhaps in some fields you may find low-priced lawyers. I would like to question the people above: Have you ever gone out and priced Criminal Defense attorneys?? We aren't talking about corporate law here, nor about divorce court, we're talking about defending ourselves against the State! --- "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what your country can do _to_ you!" --
fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) (02/25/86)
> > The trial system as practiced in these here United States is nothing more > than a gladiatorial combat system that uses persuasion in place of swords. > The plaintiff/prosecutor does _not_ have to prove the defendant guilty beyond > a shadow, etc, he merely has to _persuade_ the jury that the defendent is > guilty. > > The more persuasive the lawyer is, the more successful he is, and the more > money he gets for his services. The range of fees that you find lawyers > asking is not what you would expect from workers in a service industry > (which is what they purport to be), but rather more like that of artists, > with the extremely highly-paid prima-donnas earning millions, down to the > (relatively) poor souls that only make $100K or so. Actually, your facts prove just the opposite point from what you set out say. Who are these high paid prima-donnas of the legal profession? DEFENSE attornies, that's who. And why are they so valued? Because there job is not to prove anything, simply to put that all important *doubt* in the minds of the jury. All juries are carefully instructed that the defense need only introduce doubt about the validity of the prosecution's case. These high paid guys are good persuders, at least in criminal cases. Your point about being able to buy an acquital is generally true for this reason. Please keep in mind that the prosecutors are for the most part not very experienced either. In a perverse sort of way, the usual criminal trial fought out by a member of the DA's staff and a public defender may be the *fairest* trial in the US. There's a tendancy on this net to confuse the criminal and civil legal systems. Most of the prima donnas make their millions in the civil courts.
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (03/07/86)
In article <555@varian.UUCP> fred@varian.UUCP (Fred Klink) writes: >[...] Please keep in mind that the prosecutors are for the most part not >very experienced either. In a perverse sort of way, the usual criminal trial >fought out by a member of the DA's staff and a public defender may be the >*fairest* trial in the US. [...] Maybe they aren't where you come from, Fred, but in Washington State they are _very_ experienced professionals (unlike public defenders, who, if they are any good, soon leave for private practice). Also, your idea of a "fair" fight falls apart after you examine the system a bit more. Case in point: The prosecutor has a budget to pay for "expert" witnesses, who will testify against the defense. Many of these "expert" witnesses are often local acquaintances who work with the prosecutor often, and know the ropes of testifying for the prosecution. The costs are very small. A defendant on the other hand has to shell out not only for his defense attorney (if he wants to avoid using an over-worked, under-paid, and often marginally competent attorney) but for his "counter-expert witnesses", some of whom are _very_ expensive and often come from great distances. This is fair?? --