What side are you on?
|
The true art of a weapon is in the wielder 90% and the weapon 10%. The 10% is absent in these people but the 90% is simply weak/insufficient. Also, it's up to the accused to discuss with their attorney beforehand, if you have a dumb attorney 'carry them' by clearing shit up beforehand, you can't rely on your average public DA to be einstein of law or persuasion. If someone takes a stance on an issue, but everything they say causes anyone listening to them to consider the opposing view, was that person really supporting their cause? If their cause is part of true dichotomy then yes, a real either or scenario. This would have to be an argument that is purely deduction, not induction. If their cause is just one of many possibilities then no they do not support their cause they are arguing just against one cause. For instance, if a defense attorney asks the witnesses questions and it helps prove their client was guilty, were they really on the side of defending their client? I see this as just one of the many possibilities scenario. The attorney is really saying "anything but/or including his client". If the witness can't be trusted then their testimony against a client is not sound. They are not showing their witness clear just that the accusations at them are not held by strong premises. Example; the movie My Cousin Vinny. Seriously. In the film he was advocating for the anyone (including his clients) scenario. He showed that the tire tracks were from a common tire, the make of the vehicle to match other similar vehicles, he showed that the witnesses had poor views of the scene so their testimony weakened their accusations on the client(defendants). He didn't make an argument it wasn't them, he made an argument that the accusations against them hold no solid ground. He was aiming for "reasonable doubt". Of course they had the introduction of new evidence (oh, spoiler alert) that had a better inductive outcome than accepting his clients were the robbers. Example; the movie My Cousin Vinny. The part of My Cousin Vinny that you should be focusing on is when the stuttering public defender asks the first witness a bunch of questions and the guy had all the answers. It was clear the the public defender failed miserably and hurt his clients. Which side should that guy be considered to be supporting? Thats the difference in outcome not intent. His intent was to show a weak case, that there is reasonable doubt but instead he did the opposite. I agree things can back fire. Attacking the prosecutions stance doesn't show that the defenses clients are innocent, the law presumes innocent until proven guilty. We have two examples where through cross examination one lawyer accidentally is saying through inductive reasoning "it could be these guys "and another lawyer saying through inductive reasoning "it could have been anyone else too". One of these is against their own cause, one is against the prosecutions cause. Neither approach is for the clients being innocent because the stuttering lawyer was basically playing a role of the prosecution(due to accident not intent). The part of My Cousin Vinny that you should be focusing on is... Marisa Tomei More likely than not, that just makes them a shitty advocate. I think most people are mediocre advocates at best for their interests, and that relatively few people have the cognitive ability and desire to sabotage a different view by poorly (mis)representing it; the latter if possible but unlikely. 2
points
1
point
|
