Johnnie Cochran dies

[blankman]

CubsFan, I am deeply saddened that you would make such a ridiculous and frankly, sick analogy to the soldiers of this nation.

Your statements deserve no further comment

[BigMusky]

Settle down guys....

aawww, c'mon, that was getting fun.......

I was thinking the same thing, there are some real softies on here.

[RugbyD]

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?

So then you're perfectly OK with the fact that justice has become much less about the actual facts of the case and much more about the ability of counsel to manipulate a jury. Jury selection protocol is partly to blame, but we wouldn't excuse someone from stealing a car just b/c it was unlocked with the keys in the ignition now would we?

a) if it doesn't fit you must acquit (despite a glut of evidence to the contrary)
b) Fuhrman said the N word 15 years ago, therefore he has it in for OJ and fabricated everything
c) without a murder weapon its totally impossible to convict anyone of anything.

that was the essence of the defense, and forgive me for not being crystal clear on something that happened a decade ago. spare your arm another belt-high fastball and read Outrage by Vincent Bugliosi.

[CubsFan7724]

CubsFan, I am deeply saddened that you would make such a ridiculous and frankly, sick analogy to the soldiers of this nation.

Your statements deserve no further comment

Woah, back it up there! You assumed I said US soldiers? I said soldiers in general, with no country affiliation. Thats a dirty job too, whatever country it is. But its a job that takes courage and a certain person to do. You have to be smart, clever, and articulate to be a good defense lawyer. Cochran was all these things. I don't see how you can rag on this guy for working within the confines of the law to aid his client, who pays him. Even if a person is guilty, they have a right to an attorney to defend them. Soldiers died for that right.

[Madison]

[Arlo]

Come on, guys.

In a thread like this, nil nisi bene probably isn't a bad idea...

[CubsFan7724]

Come on, guys.

In a thread like this, nil nisi bene probably isn't a bad idea...

I'm assuming that means if you dont have anything good to say, dont say anything at all, and I agree.

[CrazyPooja90]

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...)

I've been thinking about what you said (hence the late response) and I think I agree, however it raises an interesting thought experiment. If there is some evidence that could be used to convinct a person, and it is always 99% accurate, say its a DNA test of some sorts, then by your logic would it be unjust to use to ever convinct someone? Because if you use that same method of testing, then out of every 100 people you convinct, 1 will typically be mathematically innocent. Make sense?

So my question for you JT, (or anyone who agrees with his earlier position) is can you safely use this 99% accurate evidence to convinct people?

[JTWood]

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...)

I've been thinking about what you said (hence the late response) and I think I agree, however it raises an interesting thought experiment. If there is some evidence that could be used to convinct a person, and it is always 99% accurate, say its a DNA test of some sorts, then by your logic would it be unjust to use to ever convinct someone? Because if you use that same method of testing, then out of every 100 people you convinct, 1 will typically be mathematically innocent. Make sense?

So my question for you JT, (or anyone who agrees with his earlier position) is can you safely use this 99% accurate evidence to convinct people?

I think your hypothetical isn't. I believe that all evidence we have today is falible in one way or another. There is no evidence that you can name that - when presented - guarantees guilt. Video? Look at those kids who videotaped themselves "raping" a girl. They say she consented. Not so rock-solid anymore. DNA? Was it properly obtained? Signed confession? Again, coercion ruins this.

What I'm trying to say is that your "what if" situation already exists. It's the job of the lawyers and prosecuters to show us why we (the jury) should believe it's 100% or 99%. If it's 99%, then you should let the person go, imo. That's reasonable doubt...

[CrazyPooja90]

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...)

I've been thinking about what you said (hence the late response) and I think I agree, however it raises an interesting thought experiment. If there is some evidence that could be used to convinct a person, and it is always 99% accurate, say its a DNA test of some sorts, then by your logic would it be unjust to use to ever convinct someone? Because if you use that same method of testing, then out of every 100 people you convinct, 1 will typically be mathematically innocent. Make sense?

So my question for you JT, (or anyone who agrees with his earlier position) is can you safely use this 99% accurate evidence to convinct people?

I think your hypothetical isn't. I believe that all evidence we have today is falible in one way or another. There is no evidence that you can name that - when presented - guarantees guilt. Video? Look at those kids who videotaped themselves "raping" a girl. They say she consented. Not so rock-solid anymore. DNA? Was it properly obtained? Signed confession? Again, coercion ruins this.

What I'm trying to say is that your "what if" situation already exists. It's the job of the lawyers and prosecuters to show us why we (the jury) should believe it's 100% or 99%. If it's 99%, then you should let the person go, imo. That's reasonable doubt...

Hmmm alright. Well my what if wasn't intended to be taken litterally or practically, just a way to determine a philosophy, but you answered my question at the end of your reply.