Malcolm Heights posted a cute lawyer joke and I thought it would be good to have a thread of them. Wayne Allen Root told this one recently (or something like it). New Jersey has 75% of the nations toxic waste sites and California has 75% of the lawyers. Why? Because New Jersey got to choose first. Ba dum bum.Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies
Many people say voting doesn’t matter or that if you vote then you are giving some credence to that system. I’d like to pose the idea here that even if you do not vote, for any number of reasons, you should still register to vote. The point I’m floating is that some states only pull jurors from the voter roll. While even the most staunch anarchist may not want to condone a monopoly court system they may be skipping a chance to free their fellow man with a simple jury nullification act. It could be a big case or a small one. Either way it is an opportunity to make an example, educate fellow jurors, thumb your nose at the system that forces itself upon you or all of the above. Worse case, your boss has to let you off work for a day or you miss some time fishing if you do not work. In the best case you might help a person accused of a victim-less crime who otherwise will loose many days of their life, suffer economically and face the stigma of a court record for years. At the same time it will impact the effort your own local court has put into prosecuting such a non-crime. Pipe dreamers might even say that the more frequent jury nullification is in action that it will result in less prosecution of non-violent people since prosecutors will not want to waste their time. I hear you, “What if I get a case on a violent offense and then I don’t want to participate?” At the first opportunity you can openly ask the judge or public attorney about jury nullification. Think they won’t quickly dismiss you? You would be back to work before lunch and you might have caused a curious fellow juror to look up nullification. Chime in, I’d love to hear your take on the pros/cons of serving on a jury.Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
It is standardly thought that the duty of an attorney is to zealously advocate for his client’s interests — to attempt to secure the best outcome possible for the client, by any legal means, regardless of whether that outcome is just or unjust. This doctrine is held very widely and with very high confidence in the legal profession. But is it true? Philosopher Michael Huemer is skeptical, and provides arguments to back his position. Join him to hear his arguments and ask your questions!