blankman wrote:This is why I can't stand the sheer concept of a lawyer attempting to set a guilty man free.
That's not such a bad thing. I firmly believe in the principle that approximatey says it's better to let 100 guilty men go free than to put 1 innocent man in jail.
If you have to compare the two, the latter is much more egregious.
I also believe that defense lawyers, while occasionally contemptable, do a better service by helping to strengthen our judicial system. If it were not for them, I shudder to think what our country would be like.
(Yes, I just praised the notion of having lawyers...)
Pacman wrote:I'll take folks' words for it, that he was a kind man. However, in my book, he will forever be remembered as a slick lawyer-to-the-rich-and-guilty who helped a double murderer walk free.
I understand everyone's (even OJ's) consitiutional right to council. However I am also free to believe as I want. And I'll shed NO tears for the man.
Umm, if you knew anything, he had a long career as a civil rights lawyer before the OJ case. He helped an innocent man convicted of murder get out of jail after 27 years, and also worked on the Rodney King case. And you can't criticize a guy for doing his job well. A defense lawyers job is to get his client off the hook. He wouldn't have a job if he didnt. Its like criticizing a soldier for killing someone. Its their job.
RIP Johnny. Funniest lawyer in a long time.
And like DK said, that was what he was paid to do. Get OJ off, and somehow he did. And for that, I can respect him.
How is that respectable?
He put a dangerous man, a murderer, who didn't even deserve to live back on the streets?
Don't give me the "it's his job bs."
The man was an aid to crooks and fought against justice. Some great man that is
This is why I can't stand the sheer concept of a lawyer attempting to set a guilty man free.
You can say that for any defense lawyer. I wonder if you are ever accused of a crime, if you will hire a defense lawyer. Because if you do anything less than walk into jail, you are a flaming hypocrite. Represent yourself, hypocrite. Hire a lawyer, hypocrite. Here in America, the accused have a right to defend themselves. Maybe in whatever country you want this place to be, they don't, but it isn't going to change because we have a little thing called the Bill of Rights. I can't stand the sheer concept someone could completely ignore that
CrazyPooja90 wrote:Would you prefer that criminals get presented to a jury with no representation? And the judge or jury can decide to sentence them after hearing only the prosecution? Johnny Cochran took part in a very important part of due process. I agree, it's a dirty, but deffinetely necessary part of a democracy.
Nobody's saying that people shouldn't have defense lawyers. It would be stupid not to hire someone to help represent you in the face of a preposterously abstruse legal code. The problem lies in how lawyers (prosecution or defense) bastardize the concept and practice of the very necessary due process conventions. Cochran's defense was critically short on logic and objective effectiveness. It consisted of not much more than a flashy show, catchy phrases, misdirection, and emotional appeal. That is no way to administer justice.
Last edited by RugbyD on Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
LBJackal wrote:He wasn't a great man IMO. He used manipulation to get not-guilty verdicts. I'm sure he was good at it, but I don't praise him just like I don't praise a crack dealer for being over his weekly quota. If there is a hell, Johnny'll be there right about now.
Well said
Don't understand how anyone can have respect for a man doing such a dirty job.
LBJackal wrote:He wasn't a great man IMO. He used manipulation to get not-guilty verdicts. I'm sure he was good at it, but I don't praise him just like I don't praise a crack dealer for being over his weekly quota. If there is a hell, Johnny'll be there right about now.
Well said
Don't understand how anyone can have respect for a man doing such a dirty job.
Do you respect soldiers for what they do?
soldiers eliminate murderers, attempted murderers, and their accomplices. They don't set them free.
LBJackal wrote:He wasn't a great man IMO. He used manipulation to get not-guilty verdicts. I'm sure he was good at it, but I don't praise him just like I don't praise a crack dealer for being over his weekly quota. If there is a hell, Johnny'll be there right about now.
Well said
Don't understand how anyone can have respect for a man doing such a dirty job.
Do you respect soldiers for what they do?
soldiers eliminate murderers, attempted murderers, and their accomplices. They don't set them free.
Eliminate murderers by killing them? Sounds just as right as setting them free. Don't try and play this "dirty job" game. And I think everyone forgets what Cochran did for civil rights. He just wasn't the OJ case.
fellas, this is a thread dedicated to a recently deceased. This is one of those cases where if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. Remember the "no spittin no swearing no politics" rule.
CrazyPooja90 wrote:Would you prefer that criminals get presented to a jury with no representation? And the judge or jury can decide to sentence them after hearing only the prosecution? Johnny Cochran took part in a very important part of due process. I agree, it's a dirty, but deffinetely necessary part of a democracy.
Nobody's saying that people shouldn't have defense lawyers. It would be stupid not to hire someone to help represent you in the face of a preposterously abstruse legal code. The problem lies in how lawyers (prosecution or defense) bastardize the concept and practice of the very necessary due process conventions. Cochran's defense was critically short on logic and objective effectiveness. It consisted of not much more than a flashy show, catchy phrases, misdirection, and emotional appeal. That is no way to administer justice.
All Cochran did was work within the confines of the legal order to defend his clients ot the best of his ability. Could you site any specific example of him not being logical?
"I'm going to meet the greatest umpire of all, and he knows I'm innocent."
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by JTWood » Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:33 am 
