This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This doesn't seem like a good precedent. If you rent a book on law from the library and take notes to help your case, your notes aren't protected? Your lawyer can make the same notes and they are? How can you mount a legal defense by yourself without a lawyer if the opposition can just access your notes? This isn't planning a crime, this is mounting your defense.
It doesn't smell right. It also smacks of protectionism of the legal profession. Making a precedent like this to preserve a space for lawyers and judges into perpetuity.
I think this is true though? Why would your notes to yourself be any more protected than anything else you might write, like a manifesto or whatever?
If you google legal cases on your personal computer on your personal time, then the prosecutor will put it on a powerpoint to show the jury as evidence of your guilt. If you pay $500 an hour for a lawyer to do it though, then you're fine.
PS: Watch the whole video. It's probably the greatest opening statement I've ever seen.
Would your legal chances really be that much better if you start asking lawyers about dismembering your murder victims and disposing of evidence? I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds like the crime-fraud exemption would presumably have applied in this sort of case. Are sleazy consigliere-types really common outside of Hollywood and TV fiction?
It does admittedly seem like some of the cases around the edges might be a bit fuzzy.
I think your lawyer has the option to recuse themselves if they have clear proof you are guilty. They also have the duty not to lie, and not to attempt to deceive the court. So if you start talking to your lawyer about dismembering your murder victims, your lawyer is likely to try to persuade you to plead guilty and they will also refuse to do many of the things that they would do for you if your guilt were actually in doubt. You're pretty much sabotaging yourself.
See e.g. https://barristerblogger.com/advocacy-tips/ethics/
That said, asking something like ChatGPT for legal advice seems broadly like it shouldn't be used against you, at least unless you say something like 'I'm sure they'll never find two of the bodies, and the last one is going to be too rotten to identify, what's the call here?'.
Entirely incorrect for U.S. attorneys. I could have a client arrested for DUI who confessed to me that he dismembered his entire family and buried them in the crawlspace, and I could not divulge that information. Any discussion about past crimes is strictly privileged.
I do not get to withdraw from a case even if there is strong evidence my client is guilty and he confesses to me that he is guilty. If that were true, I wouldn't have much to do as a public defender. I have to defend the case to the best of my ability regardless of the strength of the evidence.
For future crimes, I am required to disclose anything my client says if I reasonably believe there is a realistic chance of physical harm coming to someone. I have the option, but am not required, to disclose statements from a client about future crimes that do not pose a risk of physical harm but some other kind of harm.
Massive difference here between the UK and the US. Here in the UK if your client confesses to you that he is guilty you don't have to explicitly say that to the court but if he then tries to even imply during the trial that he isn't guilty you are professionally obligated to withdraw immediately (it's called being professionally embarrassed), otherwise you risk getting struck off. You don't have to explain that you're withdrawing because of the client lying but if you don't provide a different (truthful reason) the court judge, who is likely a former barrister themselves, will immediately put 2 and 2 together and your client's credibility will be utterly shot, at which point the case is as good as over.
Lesson: Don't lie to your lawyer in the UK, you may be paying them, but their primary duty is to the court, not to you (applies to both civil and criminal cases). I'd argue it works better than the US and is a good middle ground between them and China, which doesn't even have proper legal professional privilege.
Intrigued, I asked a long-standing lawyer of my acquaintance and his opinion was that although you (Count) and I are technically correct as regards the UK, in practice in the UK:
@RoyGBivensAction
Yeah, everything you say is correct. There's the high minded theory and then there's what happens in practice. In reality what happens a lot in Criminal cases specifically is that due to our split profession the barrister tries to minimize contact with the defendant and instead deals with the solicitor handling the case as much as possible and then the solicitor (who usually isn't present at the trial) makes sure the defense barrister is only told the minimum needed to run the clients case as favourably to them as possible so this whole professional embarassment issue never even props up because it's not a breach of the rules to lie to the court when you don't know what you're saying is a lie.
Of course a lot of the time this goes totally lopsided because the client runs their mouth off during cross examination and gets utterly caught out by the prosecution and it transpires that the story which had been told to Counsel has next to no relation to what actually happened, but handling situations like these gracefully is part and parcel of the job of a defense barrister and doesn't leave you facing regulatory sanctions, after all, you believed and ran with what you were told by your instructing solicitor.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link