Drug Shortages, another Canary Keels over....Pay attention....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

I don't think it's over the top. Right to end ones life should be the most important right.

What if you did something horrible, that you just can't live with because it could never be undone and wasn't done intentionally. Should that person really have to carry that burden until their natural death? What if you have some horrible disease and there is no cure and only 6 months of painful suffering until death ahead of them? Should they really have to go through that natural process, should their family have to actually watch them suffer through it? If they want out, we should give them some dignity and respect their decision.

As for the lawyers, yeah both sides really. If you know your client is guilty because you have the evidence, it should have to be presented. Now obviously the defense attorney will try and negotiate a fair outcome for his client, but I don't want child molesters and serial killers being set free because evidence existed but the defense attorney ignored it. But mostly I'm concerned with prosecutors who ignore or suppress evidence to get a conviction.

I think both lawyers should actually work together to discover the truth and arrive at a consensus.

---

Sometimes the punishment must fit the crime. Mental burden is a helluva punishment.

Basically, however, you’re saying “innocent until proven guilty” should be thrown out the window for “consensus”? I think the entire system of government will collapse over such an ideal that defense attorneys perform a role which they are not hired to do. “Consensus” can be reached in complete ignorance of the truth. I don’t want lawyers discovering or determining truth. Let’s leave that to juries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lsllc

Sometimes the punishment must fit the crime. Mental burden is a helluva punishment.

Basically, however, you’re saying “innocent until proven guilty” should be thrown out the window for “consensus”? I think the entire system of government will collapse over such an ideal that defense attorneys perform a role which they are not hired to do. “Consensus” can be reached in complete ignorance of the truth. I don’t want lawyers discovering or determining truth. Let’s leave that to juries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

What if it wasn't a deliberate crime or even a crime? What if some act of unintentional negligence led to the death of your entire family?

As for "innocent until proven guilty" that would still stand. However if the defense attorney discovered evidence that his client is in fact guilty, should he be able to suppress it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

What if it wasn't a deliberate crime or even a crime? What if some act of unintentional negligence led to the death of your entire family?

As for "innocent until proven guilty" that would still stand. However if the defense attorney discovered evidence that his client is in fact guilty, should he be able to suppress it?

---

I didn’t say that it had to be deliberate, did I?

You’re arguing against client-attorney privilege. If your defense attorney is against you, or even if he or she doesn’t believe you, the “consensus” could be presented in such a way that truth is irrelevant. Nope, I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that you’re outwitting the founders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

What if it wasn't a deliberate crime or even a crime? What if some act of unintentional negligence led to the death of your entire family?

As for "innocent until proven guilty" that would still stand. However if the defense attorney discovered evidence that his client is in fact guilty, should he be able to suppress it?

---

The system is adversarial for a reason, and for the most part it’s already heavily stacked against the accused with respect to monies, resources, logistics, etc.

Probably other issues with the right against self-incrimination and attorney client privilege.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

Uhm, that is capitalism.

---

Uhm, that was my point. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

I don't think it's over the top. Right to end ones life should be the most important right.

What if you did something horrible, that you just can't live with because it could never be undone and wasn't done intentionally. Should that person really have to carry that burden until their natural death? What if you have some horrible disease and there is no cure and only 6 months of painful suffering until death ahead of them? Should they really have to go through that natural process, should their family have to actually watch them suffer through it? If they want out, we should give them some dignity and respect their decision.

---

The problem with most suicides is that very often the causal factor is transitory in nature, but the suicidal person doesn't see that. So if you sanction such things folks who are dealing with hard times are more apt to take that way out than weather the storm so to speak.

I have several friends who have lost children or spouses. These are close enough friends that I have walked with them through the grieving. Shortly after the event, they all wished they could die. But they came out of that darkness into the light.

Another was to the point that she was taking the toaster into the bathroom when she took baths, it was plugged in, waiting for her to pull it into the water. She got help for her depression and is going strong now.

Point being if you make it too easy, people who normally wouldn't will.

I have these same feelings about today's acceptance of gays. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the camp that it's okay to be gay, I just don't think it is normal. If a person knows anything about psychology, they understand that homoerotic thoughts are not abnormal during development. In today's world, I'm concerned that the kid in the locker room who can't take his eye's off Joey's schlong, because it's bigger than his, thinks to himself 'OMG, I'm gay, but that normal' and next thing you know he has a mouthful of Joey.

If we are encouraged to give in at the least hardship/temptation, more people will succumb to the easy way.

Regarding folks with terminal illnesses, that is why palliative care doctors are found in most hospitals.

Family involvement in what amounts to euthanasia has reportedly become a problem in several countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

As for the lawyers, yeah both sides really. If you know your client is guilty because you have the evidence, it should have to be presented. Now obviously the defense attorney will try and negotiate a fair outcome for his client, but I don't want child molesters and serial killers being set free because evidence existed but the defense attorney ignored it. But mostly I'm concerned with prosecutors who ignore or suppress evidence to get a conviction.

I think both lawyers should actually work together to discover the truth and arrive at a consensus.

---

Agreed with you bolded. Disagree with the underlined.


At trial it is the job of both attorneys to vigorously present their cases within the bounds of legal and ethical considerations. The jury and/or the judge are the determiners of fact, the attorneys present evidence to help in that quest.

My understanding is that an attorney cannot knowingly allow his client to perjure themselves.

Likewise my understanding is that if an attorney knows his client is guilty because the client has confessed to him, that the attorney cannot argue that his client is not guilty, rather they have to argue the case from the perspective that the prosecution has not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

ABAS Rules:

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lsllc

I didn’t say that it had to be deliberate, did I?

You’re arguing against client-attorney privilege. If your defense attorney is against you, or even if he or she doesn’t believe you, the “consensus” could be presented in such a way that truth is irrelevant. Nope, I don’t buy it. I don’t buy that you’re outwitting the founders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ok, two topics.

First what if it wasn't even a crime. What if a person simply made some kind of horrible mistake that they simply couldn't live with. I think the right to end ones own existence on their own terms is probably the biggest right anyone could have.

Second topic, I do understand the can of worms but I also see a flaw in our current legal system. And those who defend guys who rape and murder kids just shouldn't be allowed to ignore evidence that their client is guilty. I know no matter what system you have in place, the worst offenders will learn to game it but I also know defense attorneys are paid based upon how many times they successfully defend their clients and actual guilt or innocence seems to be irrelevant and by the same token prosecutors get promoted and bonuses based upon convictions, even if they happen to convict somebody that is innocent from time to time.

I just think we need some greater level of oversight where both attorneys have a commitment to actual justice and the truth of events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

The problem with most suicides is that very often the causal factor is transitory in nature, but the suicidal person doesn't see that. So if you sanction such things folks who are dealing with hard times are more apt to take that way out than weather the storm so to speak.

I have several friends who have lost children or spouses. These are close enough friends that I have walked with them through the grieving. Shortly after the event, they all wished they could die. But they came out of that darkness into the light.

Another was to the point that she was taking the toaster into the bathroom when she took baths, it was plugged in, waiting for her to pull it into the water. She got help for her depression and is going strong now.

Point being if you make it too easy, people who normally wouldn't will.

I have these same feelings about today's acceptance of gays. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the camp that it's okay to be gay, I just don't think it is normal. If a person knows anything about psychology, they understand that homoerotic thoughts are not abnormal during development. In today's world, I'm concerned that the kid in the locker room who can't take his eye's off Joey's schlong, because it's bigger than his, thinks to himself 'OMG, I'm gay, but that normal' and next thing you know he has a mouthful of Joey.

If we are encouraged to give in at the least hardship/temptation, more people will succumb to the easy way.

Regarding folks with terminal illnesses, that is why palliative care doctors are found in most hospitals.

Family involvement in what amounts to euthanasia has reportedly become a problem in several countries.

---

Well for starters if "acceptance" is all that is necessary for Johnny to end up with a mouthful of Joey, then Joey actually is gay, or at least bi or at the very least is trying to break into the porn business and doing "gay for pay" stuff.

As for ending life. I understand where people might otherwise choose not to if situations changed. But people might also not get married, might not get divorced, might not have children, might not have abortions and all kinds of other major decisions where they get to decide.

I think if there is one thing that is absolutely off limits to everyone one else, that is control over your own very existence. Now certainly freedom is messy and families might feel terrible if their 26 year old becomes disenchanted with life and comes to believe there is "no point" and decides to just check out now. But I have a bigger problem with the state telling grown adults "no you can't." Granted, most people if they are determined can solve that problem, but should they have to. I can't think of a single reason where the state has the right to determine "right of existence." This is especially true where the state has the right to impose the death penalty but people who simply want to go aren't legally allowed to do so.

I understand certain issues, specifically that no doctor should have to participate in such an event because it violates the basic rule of "do no harm" and that is why it would be up to the individual with only the means and instruction provided to the individual. But if somebody is dying of something horrible, they shouldn't have to tough out their final days if they don't want to. I wouldn't want that for my loved ones. I also wouldn't want to discover they had to do it by themselves and were alone when it happened. I'd also hate to be the one that discovered them hanging, with part of their head blown off or in a tub full of blood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

Ok, two topics.

First what if it wasn't even a crime. What if a person simply made some kind of horrible mistake that they simply couldn't live with. I think the right to end ones own existence on their own terms is probably the biggest right anyone could have.

Second topic, I do understand the can of worms but I also see a flaw in our current legal system. And those who defend guys who rape and murder kids just shouldn't be allowed to ignore evidence that their client is guilty. I know no matter what system you have in place, the worst offenders will learn to game it but I also know defense attorneys are paid based upon how many times they successfully defend their clients and actual guilt or innocence seems to be irrelevant and by the same token prosecutors get promoted and bonuses based upon convictions, even if they happen to convict somebody that is innocent from time to time.

I just think we need some greater level of oversight where both attorneys have a commitment to actual justice and the truth of events.

---

You’re playing with feelings more than logic.

Suicide is a terminal end to a temporary problem. Obviously we cannot punish one that commits suicide. However, the decision to do so demonstrates a temporary, or even permanent, mental incompetency. What if that person is a child? What if that person cannot manage their normal affairs due to other mental deficit? Would you also afford said rights to those?

As for attorneys, you’re wanting to frame the game where we end “innocent until proven guilty” and instead replace it with consensus. You’re simply wrong. If you’re concerned about those attorneys knowingly defending the guilty, social pressure is a thing. Perhaps you should take it upon yourself to be a little social justice warrior and convince those attorneys that they should stop. Nothing compels them to take the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lsllc

You’re playing with feelings more than logic.

Suicide is a terminal end to a temporary problem. Obviously we cannot punish one that commits suicide. However, the decision to do so demonstrates a temporary, or even permanent, mental incompetency. What if that person is a child? What if that person cannot manage their normal affairs due to other mental deficit? Would you also afford said rights to those?

As for attorneys, you’re wanting to frame the game where we end “innocent until proven guilty” and instead replace it with consensus. You’re simply wrong. If you’re concerned about those attorneys knowingly defending the guilty, social pressure is a thing. Perhaps you should take it upon yourself to be a little social justice warrior and convince those attorneys that they should stop. Nothing compels them to take the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Actually I'm using very little emotion. If there is anything we have a right to, it is to determine our own existence. And it isn't always a "temporary condition."

If you are going to die, in pain and it's going to be a long process. That isn't temporary and nobody should be forced to endure it.

If you tried and failed to rescue your family from a burning building and you have nothing left that isn't a temporary situation and it isn't going away. And if you just would rather not live out your final years playing "should of / could of" you shouldn't have to.

As for the legal stuff, I am NOT suggesting an end of "innocent until proven guilty", all I'm saying is if the DEFENSE attorney discovers evidence then his client really isn't innocent any more and he shouldn't be able to just ignore it. Obviously I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how that would get done in a practical way. And I'm probably being too philosophical on this one, I just hate seeing guys get away with horrible things and it's later discovered significant evidence was successfully suppressed by the defense attorney.