This makes me so angry. I am SO angry.

I know you libertarians will disagree with me, but I think you shouldn't be able to hire legal representation. You should be assigned a lawyer by the state, rich people shouldn't be able to hire better lawyers than poor people.

This is no different than the medieval system where whoever can hire the best champion to fight for their trial by combat wins.

I know you libertarians will disagree with me, but I think you shouldn't be able to hire legal representation. You should be assigned a lawyer by the state, rich people shouldn't be able to hire better lawyers than poor people.

This is no different than the medieval system where whoever can hire the best champion to fight for their trial by combat wins.

NicoleK at December 29, 2018 2:50 AM

isn’t this essentially the argument for socialized medicine and strict gun laws?
We should all be at the mercy of the leviathan for due process, medical care, and self defense? Because somehow, it is unjust for anyone to have anything that is better than what you can get? Even if they pay for it themselves?

By the way NikoleK
It wasn’t better lawyers that got Epstein this sweetheart deal. It was money, political connections, and dirt on powerful politicos and Democratic Party movers and shakers, like Bill Clinton, and Bob Menendez.

I hear so often that this case or that case was a disgrace. It kinda gives the impression that all cases are disgraces.

Isab is correct. This isn't about Epstein, it's about the Clinton Crime Syndicate. You think they'll let Billy Jeff get charged with banging underage girls?

Epstein has leverage. He knows where the figurative bodies are buried. He's just lucky that he hasn't assumed room temperature by now. I guess that means he has some physical evidence sitting in a secure location as an insurance policy.

You should be assigned a lawyer by the state, rich people shouldn't be able to hire better lawyers than poor people.

And you think things will be different, NicoleK? let me clue you in: rich folks will still get the best lawyers assigned to them, and the poor folk not so much. Who chooses the lawyers? the state. And who pays the most in taxes? the rich.

But if you want to go back to the Inquisition, I'm game to give it a go.

I know you libertarians will disagree with me, but I think you shouldn't be able to hire legal representation. You should be assigned a lawyer by the state, rich people shouldn't be able to hire better lawyers than poor people. ~ NicoleK at December 29, 2018 2:50 AM

So, the lawyer-lesson here is, if you're poor, don't fly influential tycoons and politicians to your private island in the Caribbean to have sex with underage prostitutes, cause you can't afford a good lawyer to get you a sweetheart deal?

The problem with that argument is the same one I have with the single payer "healthcare is a right" argument. You make something a right and you've given people or the state the right to appropriate the fruits of someone else's labor.

Good lawyer and bad will be paid the same state-set rate. What happens when that rate no longer motivates people to become attorneys? When it is no longer seen as adequate recompense for the effort required to achieve a doctorate-level (juris doctor) degree?

When that happens, there will be no more lawyers and "justice" will be meted out by the state, or those who run it.

Shakespeare's "Let's kill all the lawyers" line was about the first step in implementing a socialist utopia. Perhaps, Nicole's suggestion would be just as effective.

Jack Cade: ...there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score, and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.

Dick the Butcher: The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Jack Cade: Nay, that I mean to do.

Henry The Sixth, Part 2 - Act 4, scene 2

There will still be lawyers just as there are still teachers with PHds.

So what's your solution? You think this is a just system? Or do you think it is unjust and just accept the fact that we are fucked? What is your solution?

It's one thing to be able to afford a better restaurant or school or clothes... but to be able to be above the law?

The Politician connection is a factor too of course. But basically you can out lawyer people and pay your way out of justice and no, I don't think you should be able to do that. If you agree that you shouldn't be able to buy your way out of justice, what solution do you propose?

There will still be lawyers just as there are still teachers with PHds. ~ NicoleK at December 29, 2018 8:26 AM

I believe you'll find that more doctorate-level teachers have an EdD, and not a PhD. The EdD is generally considered to have one of the least rigorous doctorate-level degree curricula.

Not to mention, the JD is the entry requirement for the legal profession. A teaching career can start with a Bachelor's. The explosion of doctorate-level degrees in education is due mostly to the increased pay that higher credentials provide - simply for the credential, not for any higher-level job or greater output.

Even so, the net effect of single-payer legal assistance will be the same as it has been on the education industry: credential bloat, inefficiency, and a general decline in the quality of both candidates and output.

From the Chronicle of Higher Education Web site forum (emphasis mine): "A PhD needs to produce a major work of original research which is evaluated by at least four people with PhD's, and is also available for perusal by all. Other doctors have to pass standardized exams which test their knowledge of the subject. As far as I can see, EdD's do neither. Essentially, an EdD is a glorified MA in education. A perfectly good degree, and perfectly appropriate for the education and training of the person earning the degree. However, it's not really a doctorate in the sense that a PhD or an MD is a doctorate. Simply put - there is no way in which somebody outside the EdD's program can test whether a person with such a degree indeed has expertise in their field that is at a higher level, qualitatively, than a person with an MA in education." This assertion was disputed in subsequent comments, mostly by admitted EdD holders. Inferiority complex?

From Wikipedia (and the University of Illinois): "At the University of Illinois, for example, the PhD in education dissertation requires an original contribution to academic knowledge, whereas the EdD dissertation 'is intended to demonstrate the candidate's ability to relate academic knowledge to the problems of professional practice.'"

The bigger issue with the government provides all the lawyers argument is the person who pay is the client. If you aren't paying you aren't the client. In that case the government is always the client. What happens when you sue the government? You honestly think lawyers that are successful at that won't get let go or given less desirable cases? If the government provides all the lawyers you essentially lose the ability to regulate the government through the courts. Which is reality today in many countries.

And as others have pointed out this case is a pretty poor one to make that argument. This isn't a failure to get legal representation. This is Democrats not policing the obvious corruption of their politicians. Epstein could have been represented by Unkle Jimmy's Dicount Lwers and he still would have gotten that same sweetheart deal. The key giveaway is "the deal included wording that granted immunity to "any potential co-conspirators''". The problem wasn't the lawyers it was the co-conspirators.

NicoleK: "This makes me so angry. I am SO angry."

If that makes you angry, get a load of this. While in jail Epstein was assigned to a private wing of the Palm Beach County Jail, was allowed to hire his own security detail, and was allowed to go to his office in Palm Beach on work release for 12 hours a day, six days a week. During the year after his release, while on probation under house arrest, he was allowed to make trips on his private jet to Manhattan and to his home in the Virgin Islands.

The Politician connection is a factor too of course. But basically you can out lawyer people and pay your way out of justice and no, I don't think you should be able to do that. If you agree that you shouldn't be able to buy your way out of justice, what solution do you propose?

NicoleK at December 29, 2018 8:29 AM

Nothing.

Part of being a grownup is recognizing that not all problems have solutions. And secondly, solutions to difficult problems create boat loads of unintended consequences that often make the “solution” worse than the original problem the solution was intended to solve.

This is why socialists are usually numbskulls who have been insulated from the real world. They think their revolutionary zeal will overcome problems that they don’t begin to understand.

NicoleK: "You should be assigned a lawyer by the state, rich people shouldn't be able to hire better lawyers than poor people."

Epstein's highly paid, super-better lawyers didn't get him off. The lawyer assigned by the state, i.e. the prosecutor, let him off. That's the lawyer who is now the U.S. Secretary of Labor - clearly a lawyer well connected in the world of government officials and politicians entertained by Jeffrey Epstein.

I agree with you... this makes me so angry. I don't know what the solution is. But I don't think giving the state more control is it. I don't think it would matter what kind of system there is. As long as the people running it are corrupt there will be corruption and injustice.

The bigger issue with the government provides all the lawyers argument is the person who pay is the client. If you aren't paying you aren't the client. In that case the government is always the client.

This is an argument along the lines of "when it is to the government's advantage that you die, can you depend upon your government-paid health provider to keep you alive?"

When the government needs you to be found guilty, will your government-provided lawyer really fight hard for you?

People cannot conceive of being the object of the government's ire, or its directed indifference (see Note below), so they don't relate to such arguments readily.

So, let's turn it around. Will the prosecutor fight hard for the people if the government needs the defendant to be found not guilty? In this case, the government, or the people in it, needed Epstein to be found not guilty or for him not to be prosecuted for his real crimes.

Like Weinstein, he will be persona non grata at future political events, but the checks will still be cashed and the phone calls taken.

Note: Socialism, like all collectivist ideologies, is all about directed indifference to its individual citizens and stands ready to sacrifice persons "for the people." In an article I read today, Kevin Williams was quoted as saying:

Utopian political movements — and all totalitarian movements are basically utopian — love the world, except for all the people in it. They all are anti-liberal and they all seek to degrade the individual and individualism. Their liturgy requires an object of adoration, and it’s usually the same object: the People, or, as American populists like to put it, We the People. For traditional nationalists, it’s the Nation in abstract and idealized form; for socialists, it’s always been the proletariat, who apparently are the only people included in the People. If you’re acting in the name of the People, you can brutalize persons. The interests of the People require a gulag, the interests of the People require a death camp, and if the people have to suffer for the People, then so be it.

If you aren't paying you aren't the client. In that case the government is always the client.

Agreed. Worse, this is a big step toward show trials. Don't worry, your guilt or innocence have already been determined, as has your sentence.

https://youtu.be/p82XpCY0CGg

So what's your solution? You think this is a just system?

It isn't a just or justice system, even if it wraps itself in the robes of Lady Justice. It is a human endeavor and as such is only as good as the humans pursuing said endeavor.

Some defense lawyers are bad. Some prosecutors are evil and/or selfish.

Kalief Browder: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/nyregion/kalief-browder-held-at-rikers-island-for-3-years-without-trial-commits-suicide.html

Senator Kamala Harris: https://observer.com/2015/01/breaking-ninth-circuit-panel-suggests-perjury-prosecution-for-lying-prosecutors/

Making matters worse, the California Attorney General fought “tooth and nail” to keep the transcript of the relevant hearing from the California Court of Appeal.

Senator Harris was that AG. Senator Harris was seated on the Senate Judiciary committee. I understand that she will be forced off that committee when the next Congress convenes, but I'm not sure if that's true.

Given that she implicitly blessed prosecutorial misconduct and perjury, is it just that she be on that committee? second, is it just that she be in the Senate, and a contender for President in 2020?

Nicole: I know you libertarians will disagree with me, but I think you shouldn't be able to hire legal representation.

I'm sure O.J. Simpson disagrees with you too.

I'm sure O.J. Simpson disagrees with you too. ~ JD at December 29, 2018 11:36 AM

The OJ verdict owes less to him having a "dream team" of defense lawyers and more to the prosecution biting off more than they could chew.

If Clark and Darden had been prosecuting on second degree murder, OJ would likely have been convicted. Instead, they went for first degree murder without enough evidence to prove it and the jury didn't buy their arguments for premeditation.

That Ito lost control of his own courtroom, letting the trial become a media circus, didn't help.

"If you aren't paying you aren't the client. In that case the government is always the client."

True for health care, too.

Why isn't this being pursued in the legal system of the country where it happened? I don't think any country has business policing the sex-tourism of its citizens outside its borders.

Why isn't this being pursued in the legal system of the country where it happened? I don't think any country has business policing the sex-tourism of its citizens outside its borders.

jdgalt at December 29, 2018 4:33 PM

They can, if what he did was against the law in the country where it occurred.

However, under U.S. law, you can’t take women or underage girls either across state lines or out of the country for immoral purposes, It is called sex trafficking. Therefore, the crime occurred here as well.

Trump LIKES THIS GUY???

Please, oh please, may a good conservative run against Trump in the 2020 GOP primary! Jeff Flake(y) and John Kasicko just don't cut it!

what solution do you propose?

My solution, were it not illegal to propose it, would be to kill Alexander Acosta's wife and children.

Brand his body with the world child rapist enabler, spend days torturing him to death, and hang his naked desecrated body from a beltway overpass

Maybe then the next lawyer prosecuting child rapists wont be so nice