by John Galt » Fri Apr 25, 2014 10:01 am
There is a difference, I think, between private defense counsel and public defense counsel. Many people don't like those fancy loyermen that violent rapists can afford as defense counsel. I don't think the ad was attacking the right to it, but rather attacking those people who choose to use it because it was assuming them guilty in the first place. And that's more of the problem, assumption of guilt. I mean, to be fair, it's a fair assumption most time, but then it can end up very badly if indeed the government did f**k up royally and managed to charge the wrong person.
but the ad was associating the man as being someone who would do business with criminals. And that's absolutely TRUE mind you, he was doing business with criminals. it can easily backfire, considering that was his job though and it's not like he was smuggling heroin to his jailed clients. OR WAS HE
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
My life has become a single, ongoing revelation that I haven’t been cynical enough.