undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDannyBee12y ago0 comments

I agree in general, but i disagree it's "quite a statement". People generally won't do jobs they believe morally or other conflict with their values. So they come up with ways (some may say "delude" themselves) to believe they don't, IE "Just following orders".

A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys.

I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personally have doubts about their guilt.

I've met many defense attorneys who believe it's okay to get people acquitted, when they've confessed their guilt to the attorney.

This isn't because they are amoral people at their core, it's because they have a job, and want to be able to sleep at night while still doing that job, so they convince themselves.

0 comments

robbiemitchell12y ago

Attorneys defend guilty people not simply because it's their job, but because they defend the right to due process and a fair trial. Everyone, even (privately) guilty people, is afforded these rights.

DannyBeeOP12y ago

I'm sorry, what? The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again?

Let's ignore the edge cases of being committing violations of unjust laws, malum prohibitum crimes, and stick with something like: Client accused of murdering 40 year old woman Client admits to you he murdered 40 year old woman because he felt like it. No police brutality, confession issues, whatever [1].

I'm of course, not saying they should be strung up. But trying to get them off on a technicality serves nothing. If they go free, it serves no overall goal of the system.

[1] Note that for things like the exclusionary rules, this is actually why a number of 'conservative' justices don't like them - they are actually in agreement that stopping police from committing constitutional violations is a worthy goal, but do not believe letting guilty people go free is the way to solve that problem.

robbiemitchell12y ago

Yes, the purpose of the trial itself is to determine guilt or innocence. I'm suggesting that the purpose of a legal system like ours is to ensure everyone's right to a fair trial in the first place; more generally, our goal is to ensure that innocent people are not put in jail. Defense lawyers make sure that guilt, if determined, is done legally and that sentencing is arrived at fairly.

If a defendant wants to skip the trial and admit guilt, that's a different matter.

1 more reply

tptacek12y ago

It serves no direct purpose to the parties of a criminal case to defend someone you know to be guilty. But doesn't it serve an important indirect purpose in allowing the system to function despite (necessarily) complex laws that laypeople can't navigate on their own?

PavlovsCat12y ago

To convince oneself against one's better knowledge that something is right when it's not, because one wants to be able to sleep at night of all things is not amoral? To "just follow orders" isn't amoral? Adolf Eichmann wasn't amoral? What, then, is amorality?

nitrogen12y ago

Are you perhaps confusing "amoral" with "immoral"? "Amoral" means without moral consideration ("pragmatic", "calculating"), "immoral" means in violation of moral consideration ("evil", "malicious").

PavlovsCat12y ago

No, I'm aware of that, and I mean amoral. Could be the person I replied to confused them, but I actually think amoral is more fitting, since numbing your conscience may be immoral, but effectively makes you behave amorally, no?

Though I do think being amoral is a position on the moral spectrum - wether amoral people want to see it or not - and to me it kinda implies immorality. I find amorality much more dangerous than mere immorality, also because it can often seem benign and go unnoticed much longer.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsDannyBee12y ago0 comments

A good example are prosecutors and defense attorneys.

I've met many prosecutors who believe it's okay to put away people for many years even if they personally have doubts about their guilt.

I've met many defense attorneys who believe it's okay to get people acquitted, when they've confessed their guilt to the attorney.

This isn't because they are amoral people at their core, it's because they have a job, and want to be able to sleep at night while still doing that job, so they convince themselves.

0 comments

robbiemitchell12y ago

DannyBeeOP12y ago

I'm sorry, what? The purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. If they admit they are guilty, are not insane, etc, please explain what end this serves again?

I'm of course, not saying they should be strung up. But trying to get them off on a technicality serves nothing. If they go free, it serves no overall goal of the system.

robbiemitchell12y ago

If a defendant wants to skip the trial and admit guilt, that's a different matter.

1 more reply

tptacek12y ago

PavlovsCat12y ago

nitrogen12y ago

Are you perhaps confusing "amoral" with "immoral"? "Amoral" means without moral consideration ("pragmatic", "calculating"), "immoral" means in violation of moral consideration ("evil", "malicious").

PavlovsCat12y ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse