HAY GUYS

Arainach · Jul 8, 2007, 10:00 AM

and why should he have to answer a question that is against his personal beliefs? We don't ask the Amish to climb into ambulances for that very same reason.

If someone wants to live according to their religion, that is their right within reason. But if they want to become a lawyer they have to know and demonstrate an understanding of the law. If that's incompatible with their religion, then it's their right to not be a lawyer.

How ya doing, buddy?

Arainach · Jul 8, 2007, 01:05 PM

Answering a legal question does not imply endorsing any values contained within. It means understanding the law. There are laws I disagree with. If I was a lawyer I'd still have to know them anyway.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Arainach · Jul 12, 2007, 10:30 AM

I'd say that if he feels that he'd be biased or if he feels he's not qualified to properly defend the person he's right to not represent them, but other than that guilty people are entitled to a full legal defense too, you know. Sort of like John Adams defending the Boston Massacre soldiers.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Arainach · Aug 9, 2007, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

I think comparing the defense of the soldiers of the Boston Massacre to the likes of Charles Manson or Lucky Luciano is a little bit of a stretch.

Why? They both were charged with criminal offenses. They both were despised by the general public. Why should one be entitled to defense and one not?

EDIT: Dead thread, ignore

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?