[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Again, defense solicitors sometimes have to defend terrible people. They can't just sell them up the river during the trial or they'd never work again. Just like prosecutors sometimes send innocent people to prison. Both sides have to work with what they have to win the case.

Also, where's your proof that there was any wrongdoing on Hillary's part? Like I said before, this is all built on circumstantial evidence and guilt by association. That video and this whole story is just a desperate attempt by Trump and his supporters to gain some ground and it's completely hypocritical given that, if we were to use the same tactics on Trump, he'd be classed as a rapist. Hillary's not been brought up on any charges, Trump's got an underage sex lawsuit in December.

Your last paragraph is not worth talking about, stop acting like a victim because nobody is discounting your opinion in fact you're just looking for an argument judging by the other essay you wrote in this topic. Your little jab at the end at everyone who happens to disagree with you is also unneeded and deeply hypocritical.

Because I do not agree with anything which you have written above - including the personal element and false supposition in the last paragraph - I will leave it here.

I have written my opinion - and the very factual and logical reasons it is based upon - and readers can make up their own minds whether to agree with it or not, and therefore, I have no wish to become embroiled in argument for arguments sake, when such argument would be futile, would not further the debate, and probably descend into highly personal barbed post trading.

[ChristmasNeeve]

^ That's why I could never be a Lawyer. You need to be a certain type of person to be able to defend people who you think are guilty of the most horrible crimes and certainly the type of person who doesn't take their work home or are capable of detaching yourself from it.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

^ That's why I could never be a Lawyer. You need to be a certain type of person to be able to defend people who you think are guilty of the most horrible crimes and certainly the type of person who doesn't take their work home or are capable of detaching yourself from it.

I agree Niamh - Like Murder Detectives, can you imagine having to blot out from your mind all those corpses you have seen, some of little children when you go home to your own children every night?

I would find it impossible.

A Defence Attorney's predicament must be even worse, because - as you say - defending someone who you know or think are guilty, must be an impossible moral and emotional problem to have to wrestle with. Especially if you are successful and get them off.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I agree Niamh - Like Murder Detectives, can you imagine having to blot out from your mind all those corpses you have seen, some of little children when you go home to your own children every night?

I would find it impossible.

A Defence Attorney's predicament must be even worse, because - as you say - defending someone who you know or think are guilty, must be an impossible moral and emotional problem to have to wrestle with. Especially if you are successful and get them off.

Yeah, jeez, I just don't think I could do it. Also, social workers must be awful difficult I think

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, jeez, I just don't think I could do it. Also, social workers must be awful difficult I think

That job, I definitely could not do Niamh. it would wreck me. Especially all those cases of little babies and tots being systematically tortured by a parent, step-parent or 'live-in' partner.

I have read cases which still haunt me today.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

That job, I definitely could not do Niamh. it would wreck me. Especially all those cases of little babies and tots being systematically tortured by a parent, step-parent or 'live-in' partner.

I have read cases which still haunt me today.

Horrendous, I know. A friend of my moms used to Foster kids years ago but eventually had to stop after a little boy she'd been fostering for ages was handed back to the parents who had sexually abused him, can you believe that?

[Ammi]

...hmmm, I feel as though I might have to give a little absence note explanation here...I've been working and although I had seen the thread title and watched the OP vid, I haven't really had time to look further and like Jamie, it's not the sort of vid that I would comment on, on face value without looking into it a bit more because it seems very much contrived and slanted by the 'anti Hilarys'....and yes there is lots to be anti Hilary about as there is lots to be anti Trump about but I don't see the correlation between this vid and the one recently posted with Trump's conversation because they're entirely different circumstances...

...Donald Trump admitted his comments and he tried to justify and excuse them as 'locker room banter'...sexual assault and finding it amusing and abusing his 'star quality' is just the average locker room banter and represents males.../well no, it doesn't not one little bit...

...with Hilary and this vid...?...the vid itself seems to be a distortion so isn't accurate of the title 'rape enabler'...she was a young prosecuting lawyer and she did voice reservations about taking the case but it wasn't ultimately her decision, she was appointed by the judge because apparently she helped run a legal aid clinic at the time, so her name came up and Thomas Alfred Taylor had specifically asked for a female to defend him...Thomas Alfred Taylor was a grim person, an awful person...defence lawyers have to defend some pretty horrendous people..rapists/murderers and even though their thoughts may be of guilt with that person and even though they might be appalled at what they've done...they still have to defend them to the best of their abilities because everyone until guilt is proven in a court of justice, is entitled to that...there is often a whole team of investigators involved also and if errors are found that could reduce a sentence for the client etc, then a job wouldn't be done properly and to the best of their ability if that wasn't used...unpleasant maybe/the thought of that with someone like Thomas Alfred Taylor...but it's what defending attorneys have pledged to do..again to represent to the best of their ability...there seemed to have been mistakes made..and those mistakes are really what are accountable for the unfortunate sentencing and that 'proper justice' wasn't served for the victim...I completely understand the victim's feelings about it and her feelings directed toward Hilary, how could she not feel the way she does and has felt over the years...those flaws in a judicial system just shouldn't happen/it's all wrong but it does happen though..we hear of it so often sadly...with the laughter..?...that's the only thing to me that seems questionable in this and the original vid seems too paint a different thing completely in that Hilary's laughter seems ironic laughter at the judicial system and how things like the polygraph said he was telling the truth when she strongly suspected he was guilty and of forensic mistakes...I mean how ironic for her that she is forced to represent in a case that she doesn't want in the first place../a tough case where a guilt outcome and appropriate harsh sentencing are pretty much certain, so a case she's pretty certain that she's going to lose...and mistakes made and complete false 'truth indicator' in a polygraph meant that justice wasn't served...that to me seemed to be where her lughter was coming from.../the irony of it all...obviously that's just my own interpretation and my own perspective to it but it's definitely not a perspective of any slant of favour toward Hilary...they're both grim, Hilary and Trump, they're both grim in different ways...I just don't think that this is one of those ways for Hilary and represents what it's suggesting....she had a responsibility under her oath to represent and defend to the very best of her abilities and she did because even the most grim of grim people are entitled to a fair representative and fair trial ....

[Ammi]

..or fairly much what Jamie said really...

[bots]

Clinton is a lawyer, and she has to represent those guilty or innocent with the same competence. However, she doesn't need to express joy and make jokes at a result when she knows that the person she was defending was stone cold guilty. That's the issue, I don't understand how people can write that off without calling her character in to question

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Clinton is a lawyer, and she has to represent those guilty or innocent with the same competence. However, she doesn't need to express joy and make jokes at a result when she knows that the person she was defending was stone cold guilty. That's the issue, I don't understand how people can write that off without calling her character in to question

Exactly BOTS.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Clinton is a lawyer, and she has to represent those guilty or innocent with the same competence. However, she doesn't need to express joy and make jokes at a result when she knows that the person she was defending was stone cold guilty. That's the issue, I don't understand how people can write that off without calling her character in to question

She laughed when she mentioned aspects of the case that were ridiculous, because, I guess she found them laughably ridiculous. That's very different to laughing at the girl or the crime which is what the video suggests she is doing.

I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess that to be a good one you have to learn to be able to separate 'case' from 'crime' and to be able to detach emotionally from the case I'd imagine.

People may question her morality I suppose for that, and noone is suggesting she's a perfect person, but it doesn't make her a 'rape-enabler', which is what the issue is.