I don’t think you can blame the prosecutors for doing their jobs (assuming they’re not breaking the rules in how they do it) under that system.
I think I can, too. This smacks of “just following orders,” or “just playing the game.” They knowingly and deliberately screw people for no good reason.
It does occasionally happen that people get accused of a crime because they, in fact, committed a crime. Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Peter Navarro, Charles Manson, all those school shooters, the guy that broke into your car last year, drunk drivers, wife-beaters, a lot of people go through the court system because they in fact did do something wrong.
Without a system where a defense lawyer could argue vigorously to try to prove their innocence, no one who knowingly and deliberately got screwed for no good reason would have a chance to prove their innocence. Without someone on the other side trying to prove their guilt, it wouldn’t work either. Again, I do think there are huge injustices built in to our current “justice” system, I actually completely agree with you on that. I just think that prosecutors doing their job isn’t one of them.
Prosecuting is fine. It’s when they have all the resources, and the defendant has a Public Defender getting paid practically nothing, and has practically no time to prepare, but the prosecution come at them like they are OJ Simpson that I have an issue.
It’s what we traditionally refer to as “a discussion.” We hone our thoughts and opinions on each other’s until they match, or until we get tired of doing so, or until we decide we do not wish to, or cannot, learn any further from each other.
Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.
I agree that it’s not the fault of the prosecutors that the system is as it is. But it is their fault when they refuse to make allowances for the system being what it is.
Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.
What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?
Also, why would you bring up something that I’ve already “admitted” in your parlance and tell it to me? (I guess sharing a view with you is “admitting” something, since this needs to be an adversarial interaction and your point of view is presumed to be the “right” one that you’re trying to bring me around to).
Also, why would you bring up something that I’ve already “admitted” in your parlance and tell it to me?
Because it’s central to my own point, and context helps make things clear?
What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?
I saw nothing that I observed as a counter-point.
I guess sharing a view with you is “admitting” something, since this needs to be an adversarial interaction and your point of view is presumed to be the “right” one that you’re trying to bring me around to
No, as I said above, we are working on mutual communication, leading hopefully to us both learning more about the issue under discussion.
Since “admitted” doesn’t work for you, what other word would you have me use? I’m trying to convey you knowing something, and saying that something, but not framing it in a way that communicates to me that you are thinking about it the same way I am, but are instead treating it as a minor point, or once detached from the immediate point, while I find it to be critical to the immediate point.
I think I can, too. This smacks of “just following orders,” or “just playing the game.” They knowingly and deliberately screw people for no good reason.
It does occasionally happen that people get accused of a crime because they, in fact, committed a crime. Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Peter Navarro, Charles Manson, all those school shooters, the guy that broke into your car last year, drunk drivers, wife-beaters, a lot of people go through the court system because they in fact did do something wrong.
Without a system where a defense lawyer could argue vigorously to try to prove their innocence, no one who knowingly and deliberately got screwed for no good reason would have a chance to prove their innocence. Without someone on the other side trying to prove their guilt, it wouldn’t work either. Again, I do think there are huge injustices built in to our current “justice” system, I actually completely agree with you on that. I just think that prosecutors doing their job isn’t one of them.
Prosecuting is fine. It’s when they have all the resources, and the defendant has a Public Defender getting paid practically nothing, and has practically no time to prepare, but the prosecution come at them like they are OJ Simpson that I have an issue.
Why are you lecturing me? What’s my point #2 say up in the parent comment?
It’s what we traditionally refer to as “a discussion.” We hone our thoughts and opinions on each other’s until they match, or until we get tired of doing so, or until we decide we do not wish to, or cannot, learn any further from each other.
What’s my point #2 say, up in the parent comment?
Your point number two admits the issue, but then you end by saying that you can’t blame the seal-clubbers for clubbing seals.
I agree that it’s not the fault of the prosecutors that the system is as it is. But it is their fault when they refuse to make allowances for the system being what it is.
What counterpoint did I raise to this argument when it was raised before?
Also, why would you bring up something that I’ve already “admitted” in your parlance and tell it to me? (I guess sharing a view with you is “admitting” something, since this needs to be an adversarial interaction and your point of view is presumed to be the “right” one that you’re trying to bring me around to).
Because it’s central to my own point, and context helps make things clear?
I saw nothing that I observed as a counter-point.
No, as I said above, we are working on mutual communication, leading hopefully to us both learning more about the issue under discussion.
Since “admitted” doesn’t work for you, what other word would you have me use? I’m trying to convey you knowing something, and saying that something, but not framing it in a way that communicates to me that you are thinking about it the same way I am, but are instead treating it as a minor point, or once detached from the immediate point, while I find it to be critical to the immediate point.