ARe you offended by a persons Jobs?

[Tmy]

I thought about this when I saw some footage on a drunk driving story. The victims family had some harsh words for this attorney who specializes in DUI cases.

Do you ever look down on people who earn a living in a sleazy way?

Some people dont like police officers, or defense attorneys. But what about a tobacco executive? Would you befreind someone who makes a living by killing people?

I dont know. Im kinda a live an let live guy.

[Anti_Hypeman]

I have never had a tobacco exec come to my house and shove a cigarette in my mouth how do they kill people? The government has done more to make smoking cool than Joe Camel ever did.

Whats the lmit do McDonalds cashiers kill people? Is it just tobacco or everything thats bad for you? If its not everything then whats the limit how much damage dose a single dose have to do to constitute killing?

If anything smoking is suicide not murder.

[Tmy]

Yeah but as an exec, the guy is making big money by pushing a product that really doesnt do much other than kill the addicts it creates. In a very messy way to boot.

Im not saying it shoudlnt be legal. I dont think that ethically, I could do that job.

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by Tmy

I thought about this when I saw some footage on a drunk driving story. The victims family had some harsh words for this attorney who specializes in DUI cases.

Do you ever look down on people who earn a living in a sleazy way?

Yes. And at the top of my list are lawyers who fight their hardest to get their clients off, even though they know the client is guilty of a horrible crime. I know that is ethical in the standards of the legal profession. But it is not ethical by my standards.

Quote:

Some people dont like police officers, or defense attorneys. But what about a tobacco executive?

Tobacco executives are fine with me. They don't force people to smoke. People make choices. Some people choose to start smoking. Tobacco execs are selling and marketing a legal product. Like AH said, smoking is suicide, not murder.

Quote:

I dont know. Im kinda a live an let live guy.

So am I. Hence, my stand on executives of companies that sell legal products that are used voluntarily by their customers.

[Tmy]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

Yes. And at the top of my list are lawyers who fight their hardest to get their clients off, even though they know the client is guilty of a horrible crime. I know that is ethical in the standards of the legal profession. But it is not ethical by my standards.
.

Shouldnt you blame the prosecutor for not getting the guy locked up? If an attny knows his client did it, he cant go forward with lies. But he CAN make the prosecutor prove thier case.

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by Tmy

Shouldnt you blame the prosecutor for not getting the guy locked up? If an attny knows his client did it, he cant go forward with lies. But he CAN make the prosecutor prove thier case.

If the prosecutor does the best job he is professionally capable of, then I can't blame him, no.

[Anti_Hypeman]

The only people I really hate are the woos that make a living kicking people when they are down including faith healers, mediums, homeopaths, and especially the natural cures guy.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Any legal professionals here? I am curious as to how many criminals actually admit guilt to their lawyer.

[Freakshow]

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

Any legal professionals here? I am curious as to how many criminals actually admit guilt to their lawyer.

Amateur Scientist and I had a LONG discussion on this once. He said that he actually didn't want to know about his client's guilt. It didn't matter in his ability to put on the best defense possible. You can search for the thread, but I don't recall what it was called. Look for threads that have both him and I posting, and words like "guilt", "attorney", "lawyer", "client", etc.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Freakshow

Yes. And at the top of my list are lawyers who fight their hardest to get their clients off, even though they know the client is guilty of a horrible crime. I know that is ethical in the standards of the legal profession.

A defending lawyer has a duty to provide the best defence possible for their client.

On the other hand, at least in this country, lawyers also have a duty to the court. The Bar's Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work includes this:

Quote:

5.1 A barrister must at all times promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means his lay client's best interests.

5.2 A barrister must assist the Court in the administration of justice and, as part of this obligation and the obligation to use only proper and lawful means to promote and protect the interests of his client, must not deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the Court. (My emphasis)

In practice I think this means that if a lawyer knows their client is guilty, for example if the client has confessed to them, they are not allowed to run a defence on the basis that they're innocent, and certainly not to put forward evidence suggesting this. But the prosecution has to prove their case, and the defence is still entitled to make them do this.

I imagine the situation is the same in the USA.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Mojo

A defending lawyer has a duty to provide the best defence possible for their client.

On the other hand, at least in this country, lawyers also have a duty to the court. The Bar's Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work includes this: In practice I think this means that if a lawyer knows their client is guilty, for example if the client has confessed to them, they are not allowed to run a defence on the basis that they're innocent, and certainly not to put forward evidence suggesting this. But the prosecution has to prove their case, and the defence is still entitled to make them do this.

I imagine the situation is the same in the USA.

In think it is too, I remember seeing some movies that sugests this is soo, not the most reliable sources perhaps but still.

[Mycroft]

For some reason this thread makes me think of those guys who call your office and ask for the serial number of your photo-copy machine. My standard response is to pause for a moment, then ask, "How do you sleep at night?" which invariably gets a hang up as a response.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

For some reason this thread makes me think of those guys who call your office and ask for the serial number of your photo-copy machine. My standard response is to pause for a moment, then ask, "How do you sleep at night?" which invariably gets a hang up as a response.

I don't get that, Is it some kind of scam or what?

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Kerberos

I don't get that, Is it some kind of scam or what?

Yeah, supposedly they get the serial number of your printer, then send you a bunch of printer ink you don't need/can't use, and invoice your company for a boat-load of money, where it's nearly impossible to prove someone didn't authorize the purchase.

It must be profitable, the scam never seems to go away.

[shecky]

I've kinda fantasized a bit about being a unapologetic tobacco exec. Personally, I'm a non smoker and have little tolerance for second hand smoke. But I like the idea of selling things that people want. And tobacco kinda sells itself.

I guess arms dealers have in the past been been thought of as poorly principled. I guess I could go along with that depending on who is doing the buying.

[casebro]

Anybody efer think of the benefits of tobacco use? Don't folks smoke for it's calmimg effect, and wouldn't this prevent some violence? If so, what would the give away/ take away be? Man years gained, medical costs of, say bar fights and road rage, vs emphasema and lung cancer? Perhaps there is a reason cars have ash trays?

[casebro]

Re: Differences in US vs English legal systems- Isn't the basis of british system "to find the truth" while the US system is to prove the particular suspect did or didn't do it? Distinction without a difference?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Mojo

A defending lawyer has a duty to provide the best defence possible for their client.

On the other hand, at least in this country, lawyers also have a duty to the court. The Bar's Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work includes this: In practice I think this means that if a lawyer knows their client is guilty, for example if the client has confessed to them, they are not allowed to run a defence on the basis that they're innocent, and certainly not to put forward evidence suggesting this.

The pressing question is, how many lawyers get disciplined for running a defence on the basis of their client's innocence when they know their client is guilty? Bear in mind that, amazingly enough, discussions between lawyers and their clients are "privileged" such that you can't ever put a lawyer on the stand and ask them whether their client has confessed guilt, or whether they have conspired to hide evidence. If police dare to spy on such conversations their case will be thrown out of court on the spot.

(Interestingly enough I do not believe this privilege was ever made law by any parliament. As far as I know it was made up by judicial fiat in England for the benefit of the legal profession and it propagated from there. It is now considered one of the most solemn and worthy principles of legal ethics, in accordance with the principle that the more ridiculous the procedure the more emotional lawyers must be in defending it).

Given that a private defence lawyer's practise (or potential practise in the case of public defenders) depends on getting people off, and that it facilitates getting people off to know the truth of what happened, then one would have to harbour the suspicion that this "forbidden" behaviour is engaged in reasonably regularly.

[UserGoogol]

I'd probably be a little offended if I found out someone I knew was a proffesional child molestor. Just a little.

Defense attorneys of the obviously guilty? Generally no, guilty people deserve just as much rights as innocent people.

Cigarette executives? Somewhat. Yes, people should be free to do harmful things to themselves if they really really want to, but many cigarette executives are in the business of encouraging people to smoke, which is a different matter. People are... very suggestable creatures, so suggesting someone to harm themselves is somewhat unethical. At the same time, regulations on cigarette advertising have made it so that cigarette executives are fairly restricted in their ability to promote their products, so... hm.

Hit men? Yes, but I imagine that if I could actually be close to such a person it would just be a little too overpowering to actually feel offense, but instead just a vague discomfort.

Policemen who enforce flagrantly unjust laws? Ah, it would depend on the exact balance of just to unjust laws and their own personal motivations.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Yeah, supposedly they get the serial number of your printer, then send you a bunch of printer ink you don't need/can't use, and invoice your company for a boat-load of money, where it's nearly impossible to prove someone didn't authorize the purchase.

It must be profitable, the scam never seems to go away.

Ahh, I did wonder why on Earth anybody would need the serial number of the printer. Still I suspect that legally they'd be required to prove you did buy it, but some people might pay to avoid the hassle.

[shalomsteph]

I do not allow drunks in my home, and I have no tolerance for them. None. Maybe because a drunk driver killed my uncle...

Now that I think about it, I am very fussy about who I spend time with. I don't have boatloads of free time...so...no Republicans, no woo-freaks, no fundies and no felons or sex offenders and no nutters.

Hmmm....maybe that's why I don't have any friends....

[Mycroft]

Pimp. Thief.

I can't think of any legal professions I wouldn't get along with.

[David Swidler]

I hate the guy whose job it is to hide the things I'm looking for. It must be gratifying to him to witness my reacion, but since he doesn't seem to be around when I react with spittle and rage, that seems kinda pointless.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by casebro

Re: Differences in US vs English legal systems- Isn't the basis of british system "to find the truth" while the US system is to prove the particular suspect did or didn't do it? Distinction without a difference?

No, the British system is an adversarial system just like that in the USA, aiming to find out which side has the better lawyer case.

Some European countries (e.g. France) have an inquisitorial system in which the judge is supposed to try to find out the truth, but the UK isn't one of them.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by David Swidler

I hate the guy whose job it is to hide the things I'm looking for. It must be gratifying to him to witness my reacion, but since he doesn't seem to be around when I react with spittle and rage, that seems kinda pointless.

He records it with hidden camera and sells it to Comedy Central.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The pressing question is, how many lawyers get disciplined for running a defence on the basis of their client's innocence when they know their client is guilty? Bear in mind that, amazingly enough, discussions between lawyers and their clients are "privileged" such that you can't ever put a lawyer on the stand and ask them whether their client has confessed guilt, or whether they have conspired to hide evidence. If police dare to spy on such conversations their case will be thrown out of court on the spot.

(Interestingly enough I do not believe this privilege was ever made law by any parliament. As far as I know it was made up by judicial fiat in England for the benefit of the legal profession and it propagated from there. It is now considered one of the most solemn and worthy principles of legal ethics, in accordance with the principle that the more ridiculous the procedure the more emotional lawyers must be in defending it).

Given that a private defence lawyer's practise (or potential practise in the case of public defenders) depends on getting people off, and that it facilitates getting people off to know the truth of what happened, then one would have to harbour the suspicion that this "forbidden" behaviour is engaged in reasonably regularly.

This is quite possible. The "enforcement" side of this is clearly a problem. The point I was trying to make was that this is not considered ethical by the legal profession.

Incidentally, a surprising amount of English law (and by extension the law of the other common law juristictions, which is to some extent based on English law) was, as you put it, "made up by judicial fiat" rather than parliament. For example, quite a large number of crimes, including murder, are "common law offences" in the UK; there is no statute stating that they are a crime. The law comes from judges' decisions.

[David Swidler]

Originally Posted by kerberos

He records it with hidden camera and sells it to Comedy Central.

Oh. You got me there. I don't have cable, so I wouldn't know.

[Kerberos]

Originally Posted by David Swidler

Oh. You got me there. I don't have cable, so I wouldn't know.

If it's any consolation, you bring endless joy to many, many people.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by Mojo

This is quite possible. The "enforcement" side of this is clearly a problem. The point I was trying to make was that this is not considered ethical by the legal profession.

I agree with your point. My point was that nonetheless this "ethical" rule is not enforced and there are distinct incentives to break it.

I vaguely recall (and please do not put to much weight on my vague recollections) that in many cases the form of this ethical rule is just barely observed while the spirit is discarded. Lawyers cannot tell a client to lie, but they can tell their client that if they ran a particular claim which might or might not be true then the prosecution would have difficulty refuting it, for example.

It's telling the client to lie and how to do it, but the fig leaf of ethics is maintained.

Quote:

Incidentally, a surprising amount of English law (and by extension the law of the other common law juristictions, which is to some extent based on English law) was, as you put it, "made up by judicial fiat" rather than parliament. For example, quite a large number of crimes, including murder, are "common law offences" in the UK; there is no statute stating that they are a crime. The law comes from judges' decisions.

In the case of murder there is no obvious conflict of interest. Potential for corruption arises more when lawyers invent privileges for lawyers.

[Cain]

A lot of jobs offend me. I wonder if the above freakshows would have no problem with pimps and pornographers because they're not "forcing" their employees to work for them. Tobacco executives, as someone pointed out earlier, seek to encourage smoking, and consequently make a lot of money by profiting off death. They're using people as a means for their own crassly materialistic end.

All this stuff aside, one can make a living in a terrible way, and still be a nice, friendly person. This was true for slave-owners.

That said, I generally hate people in advertising. They suck, and I'm not sure if I could ever be friends with one of them. Of course, things change when you go from the general to the particular and personally encounter someone who is an exception to your stereotype.

But how many tobacco executives, pornographers, and advertisers am I going to meet? Not my crowd. The issue can easily be enlarged: suppose you have a friend who you know (because h/she tells you) cheats on their spouse? Can you be friends with someone who is homophobic? Slightly racist? Perhaps you can be friends, but not good friends.

I don't think these are things you can easily bracket out. The trouble is (especially in American culture) the first thing you learn about someone is their job. Typically you will already be friends with a racist or homophobe before learning their views, which then makes it more difficult to not be their friend.

[Ed]

Another vagure recollection.

A year or more ago some guy was on trial for killing a kid. He tried to bargin info on the location of the body against a reduced sentence. When this fell thru he went to trial with a "not guilty" defence.

O'Reilly made a stink about this and tried to get the lawyer hauled up on ethics charges (in Calif I think). Long story short, lawyers do take care of their own and nothing happened.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Ed

Another vagure recollection.

A year or more ago some guy was on trial for killing a kid. He tried to bargin info on the location of the body against a reduced sentence. When this fell thru he went to trial with a "not guilty" defence.

O'Reilly made a stink about this and tried to get the lawyer hauled up on ethics charges (in Calif I think). Long story short, lawyers do take care of their own and nothing happened.

Over here, the defence would still be allowed to run a not guilty plea, and ask the prosecution to prove their case, but they would not be able to introduce, for example, any alibi evidence or evidence purporting to suggest that someone else had committed the crime. From the Bar's Code of Conduct again:

Quote:

12.2 It follows that the mere fact that a person charged with a crime has confessed to his counsel that he did commit the offence charged is no bar to that barrister appearing or continuing to appear in his defence, nor indeed does such a confession release the barrister from his imperative duty to do all that he honourably can for his client.

12.3 Such a confession, however, imposes very strict limitations on the conduct of the defence. a barrister must not assert as true that which he knows to be false. He must not connive at, much less attempt to substantiate, a fraud.

12.4 While, therefore, it would be right to take any objections to the competency of the Court, to the form of the indictment, to the admissibility of any evidence or to the evidence admitted, it would be wrong to suggest that some other person had committed the offence charged, or to call any evidence which the barrister must know to be false having regard to the confession, such, for instance, as evidence in support of an alibi. In other words, a barrister must not (whether by calling the defendant or otherwise) set up an affirmative case inconsistent with the confession made to him.

12.5 A more difficult question is within what limits may counsel attack the evidence for the prosecution either by cross-examination or in his speech to the tribunal charged with the decision of the facts. No clearer rule can be laid down than this, that he is entitled to test the evidence given by each individual witness and to argue that the evidence taken as a whole is insufficient to amount to proof that the defendant is guilty of the offence charged. Further than this he ought not to go.

Whether the lawyer in the case you mentioned committed an offence probably depends on how he conducted the case. The prosecution must have known about the attempted plea-bargain. They would have been able to object during the trial, surely?

[Anti_Hypeman]

I forgot spammers and telemarketers.

[shalomsteph]

Originally Posted by Ed

Another vagure recollection.

A year or more ago some guy was on trial for killing a kid. He tried to bargin info on the location of the body against a reduced sentence. When this fell thru he went to trial with a "not guilty" defence.

O'Reilly made a stink about this and tried to get the lawyer hauled up on ethics charges (in Calif I think). Long story short, lawyers do take care of their own and nothing happened.

It was the Danielle Van Dam case--that horrible summer when Danielle, Samantha Runyan and Elizabeth Smart were all kidnapped. Apparently, Danielle's killer knew where the body was and wanted to use that to escape the death penalty. The volunteers found the body about the same time, so then the lawyer had him plead not guilty and, if I recall correctly, did a magnificent job tossing blame to Danielle's parents. As for Samantha, her body was found by a very traumatized skyglider within a day or two, and Elizabeth came home.

[Meadmaker]

Any profession which makes money off dishonesty is one I look down on. I don't think that it's ok to lie just to make money, and I don't think "I was just doing my job" is a good excuse. Also, any profession where you know the people will be harmed if they give you money is one I would frown upon.

There are very few cases where the entire profession is automatically guilty. It depends on what you do with it. Examples of professions that I usually have contempt for:

Drug pushers. They deliberately try to get you addicted, knowing the harm in what they do.

Ambulance chasing lawyers: They know that no one is really at fault for the injuries they are seeking damages for, but they get money anyway. Likewise with an awful lot of class action filere.

Tobacco executives: See drug pushers,although I think it is theoretically possible to be a tobacco executive without being a drug pusher, the drug pusher type will usually make more money, which means that the ethical tobacco executive who admits that most users will be at increased risk for cancer and disease will probably be pushed aside in favor of the drug pusher type.

Casino owners: See drug pushers.

Environmental lawyers who work for chemical companies: Some are honest. Most are mercenaries.

Mediums, palm readers, faith healers, etc: Even if they believe their junk, they have an obligation to see if it really works, and when they realize it doesn't they should stop taking the money. Most of the successful ones are just plain swindlers.

Hit men: Is any explanation needed?

Plain old thieves: Likewise.

[luchog]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Any profession which makes money off dishonesty is one I look down on.

I quit one job because of a boss that lied to customers, and misrepresented the business, and expected us to as well.

I would agree with you regarding which jobs I look down on. Telemarketing is often in this category, though I'd probably limit this to managers/owners (few telemarketing firms are truly honest, though their employees don't often realize how they're being used.)

To that I would add those jobs that aren't necessarily dishonest, but take advantage of people under duress or serious mental/emotional strain. Funeral directors/salesmen frequently fall into this category (though not all of them, fortunately).

For those who happen to live in military towns, there is a breed of salesmen who exist solely to prey on new recruits, who are generally young, under great mental (and often physical) stress, and at a point where they are highly suggestible (which is the goal of their training). They're not overtly dishonest; but operate by using high-pressure sales tactics, flattery, and strongly emotional appeals in order to sucker them into expensive, high-interest credit purchases. Usually selling jewelry, watches, and such; though some motorcycle and car dealers work this way as well. They claim to offer "special military rates", which are usually as high, or higher, than typical store-credit rates; and count on the military's guaranteed payback policy to avoid a potential default/repo situation.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

I have never had a tobacco exec come to my house and shove a cigarette in my mouth how do they kill people? The government has done more to make smoking cool than Joe Camel ever did.

I'm of a number of minds about that whole thing. On one level, I agree that personal responsibility has to count for something, if not everything, in such cases. On the other hand, tobacco executives got up in front of congress and deliberately lied about the safety and addictiveness of their products in order to keep regulations off them, and it worked (for a while, anyways). And that has to count for something too, and I think THAT sort of thing (which they really did engage in and which really was horrifically immoral and even illegal), not the danger of the products themselves or even advertising which makes cigarettes "cool", should be the basis of any liability. But when it comes to stuff like fast food restaraunts, I'm just not seeing the same kind of obvious culpability from executives that was so apparent in the tobacco case.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Anti_Hypeman

The only people I really hate are the woos that make a living kicking people when they are down including faith healers, mediums, homeopaths, and especially the natural cures guy.

Amen! I'm not a public spokesperson for Skepticism and have no trouble with being rude and incivil and using foul language around lying thieving bloodsuckers who prey on grief and pain and anguish.

Sure, I look down on them. You bet.

As for lawyers, I think a lawyer who knows his client is guilty but publicly implicates an innocent person as being guilty of the crime (false witness) to get his client off is about as low a worm as it gets.

[Tmy]

Im not to thrilled with Exxon making record breaking (10 Billion!) profits because of the hurricane Katrina tradgedy.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Tmy

Im not to thrilled with Exxon making record breaking (10 Billion!) profits because of the hurricane Katrina tradgedy.

On the flip side, I don't know of any correction to that problem which isn't likely to be worse than the solution. Gas supplies were limited because of external events they had no control over. When gas supplies are limited, there's only three possible responses:

1) raise prices so that demand drops
2) institute rationing
3) accept long gas lines and the inability of some people to get gas at all

I prefer solution 1, and I suspect most people would as well. And since there's no process for limiting their profits in such a scenario which cannot also be used to essentially just take wealth whenever the legislature feels like it, letting them keep the profits is preferable to me to government attempts to seize that money. I don't want the government seizing "windfall" profits any more than I want them bailing out failing businesses.