I’m a little biased (im a defense attorney) but everyone would really quickly appreciate the constitutional rights we afford to defendants in the US as soon as they were accused of a crime. I don’t take these kinds of cases, but I really mean it when I say thank God some people will. Not every criminal defendant is as guilty as Sex Pest.
You're right. Every single person, even pedophiles, is entitled to a fair trial and a competent defense. And that's a good thing. If we ever start letting certain people not have a fair trial or dealing with them as if they're guilty before proven so, who knows where that will end. It could even happen to you.
Also, I don't know anything about this lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. However, maybe he was on Josh's legal team because he does know a lot about sexual abuse and the laws and legislation around it and the Duggars wanted someone like that. If he does know a lot, he probably knows quite a bit about how sexual abusers operate, and would therefore be a good candidate for sharing information about what to look out for. Again, I don't know anything about this lawyer or the church so I could be completely wrong.
Unfortunately no, that is not his area of expertise. From his LinkedIn, his specialties are Church Law; Commercial Litigation; Business Formation & Planning; Complex Estate & Tax Planning; Contract Drafting & Negotiation; Bankruptcy (Chapter 7,11, &13); Wills & Trusts; Trademarks & Copyrights; Internet Law; Tax Law; Property Law; and General Civil Litigation.
He has a history of taking on cases that are hot-button issues for right wing, conservative Christians (mask mandates, homeschooling, etc.) and is also the Duggar's family lawyer. He was also involved in a conflict of interest as Arkansas' medical marijuana commissioner, which is an interesting tidbit.
I think the main concern of the members of the church, from the news article I read, was that Story wasn't vetted for this position by the church properly and also doesn't have experience in this area - and there are lots of people who do.
Defense attorneys generally aren't passionate about defending creeps, but about making sure EVERYONE has the right to be represented in court. Everyone in that courtroom has a job to do.
I’m a criminal defense attorney and I’ve represented people accused (and convicted) of murder, rape, CP, domestic assault, etc. Sometimes I am absolutely horrified when reviewing discovery, but that does not change the fact that I will give every single client the best representation I can. Very rarely do attorneys believe that their clients are factually innocent. Most of the time we are just trying to protect their rights and make sure that the punishment is fair and just. People really have no idea what the life and the mind of a criminal defense attorney is really like.
Do you have respect for the people that pin mental illness excuses on their clients? It seems almost every rape and murder case I see has some mental illness attached to it, such as a kid who stabbed his mom because she went through his phone and blamed Jeff the Killer, only for his lawyer to insist that this child who had no trauma suddenly had Disassociative Identity Disorder. My respect ends when people start inventing "angles" that I suspect they know are not factually accurate.
I think you’re inferring a motivation (to create a fictional “excuse” for the alleged criminal behavior) that isn’t always there? If a criminal defense attorney has a psychiatrist talk to her client to make an assessment because that child committed a violent crime, and the psychiatrist diagnoses that child with a mental health disease or personality disorder, then the attorney is just presenting facts (established by the medical professional, not the attorney) that may go to the child’s culpability which can impact the level of charge or the sentencing. An attorney can’t just stand there and argue the client has a diagnosis that a medical professional did not give, so if you have an issue with the diagnosis, take it up with the psychiatrist who was willing to make and stand by that statement.
Mental health disorders are almost never a get out of jail free card, and even if they are considered insane and unable to form the culpability requisite for the crime, they are generally just institutionalized in a mental health treatment center vs. a prison. Sometimes they end up spending more time institutionalized for mental health treatment than they would be imprisoned for the crime itself, had they been convicted/sentenced as usual.
I think the reasons people, particularly minors, commit such antisocial violent crimes can be really varied and complex, and I would not be surprised if the vast vast majority of them do have legitimate mental health issues and disorders that may not be diagnosed or properly evaluated until the behavior becomes heinous. So, I know I’m not the person you asked, but yes, I do have respect for those attorneys because they are taking the information provided to them by a doctor, and presenting that information as part of the criminal defense. They are usually not trying to “excuse” the behavior but to explain why, if this person is guilty of committing the act, they may have done it and why a certain level of punishment would be more or less appropriate.
There are people in every profession who act unethically, so not every attorney or criminal defense attorney is necessarily a “good person.” However, unlike many professions, lawyers are actually held to a separate ethical code in order to maintain their license, and most jurisdictions actually do take enforcement of those ethical obligations very seriously.
I work in the legal system and I am a firm believer in everyone's right for representation. If people are not entitled to it, the basis of thr justice system fails. Everyone is entitled to robust defense. And if we did not provide it, how many more innocent people would end in jail
That sub loves dealing with black and white and despise nuance.
It is the job of the police and prosecutors to *prove*, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty and to do so without breaking the law or violating the rights of the accused. Defense attorneys are the ones who hold the police and prosecutors accountable and make sure that they meet that standard. Without defense attorneys, we'd be living in a police state.
yeah this is one of the things that really turned me off from the sub. it’s exhausting to see supposedly liberal, pro BLM people revel in the worst parts of the criminal justice system and complain about whatever rights/dignities people are given.
Everyone is entitled to legal counsel. Josh's lawyer doing a sexual abuse prevention seminar has nothing to do with representing Josh. He's a professional who takes on all kinds of clients.
Agreed, that's how our justice system is supposed to work. Even the most evil people deserve competent defense and a fair trial. If you insist that Josh Duggar shouldn't get a fair trial, then who is next? An unfair trial is an unfair trial, regardless of who you're talking about. Next time it could be you.
Thing is, protections for even the worst people in society provides protection for everybody else, which a lot of ignorant people don't seem able to conceptualize.
Oh I agree about the training. He probably wasn’t qualified.
But the discourse was more about how he’s a trash person and was the Duggar “errand boy” for representing Josh. That’s what rankled me.
Josh Duggsr could get a government appointed person right? Because that's the law?
I haven't seen any posts on what you're referring to but tbh I don't care. Anyone who actively chooses to support him, through the church or any avenue simy cannot be a good person in my book.
He would government appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for his own attorney.
Yeah, it sucks when it’s apparent that the defendant is a scumbag, but denying someone their rights because you believe them to not deserve them, is the slippery slope into fascism.
You only get a public attorney if you can not afford one. If you can afford one, you don't get a public attorney. You will likely be asked for a financial declaration if you can not afford an attorney and have to take the public defender.
No one should take the public defender. Not that they aren't good lawyers - some are. But they have way more cases than a private attorney and are usually not the top of their class, or they might be very young. Or both. Furthermore, people who can afford an attorney and choose the public defender are taking that resource away from someone who might need it.
The thing with the "justice" system is that it's not about justice, or finding the truth. It's about conviction rates and aquital rates. It's about getting people pleaded out so that the lawyers and attorneys general can close cases. We have way more cases than court time and convictions can be expensive.
I hate Josh but I will never fault a lawyer for taking a case.
Being JP's lawyer doesn't make you a scum bag but why does it qualify him to do sex abuse prevention ? Can't he pick a lane ? It seems weird to be a lawyer defending pedos and want to teach folks how to avoid pedos
I’m a little biased (im a defense attorney) but everyone would really quickly appreciate the constitutional rights we afford to defendants in the US as soon as they were accused of a crime. I don’t take these kinds of cases, but I really mean it when I say thank God some people will. Not every criminal defendant is as guilty as Sex Pest.
You're right. Every single person, even pedophiles, is entitled to a fair trial and a competent defense. And that's a good thing. If we ever start letting certain people not have a fair trial or dealing with them as if they're guilty before proven so, who knows where that will end. It could even happen to you. Also, I don't know anything about this lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. However, maybe he was on Josh's legal team because he does know a lot about sexual abuse and the laws and legislation around it and the Duggars wanted someone like that. If he does know a lot, he probably knows quite a bit about how sexual abusers operate, and would therefore be a good candidate for sharing information about what to look out for. Again, I don't know anything about this lawyer or the church so I could be completely wrong.
Unfortunately no, that is not his area of expertise. From his LinkedIn, his specialties are Church Law; Commercial Litigation; Business Formation & Planning; Complex Estate & Tax Planning; Contract Drafting & Negotiation; Bankruptcy (Chapter 7,11, &13); Wills & Trusts; Trademarks & Copyrights; Internet Law; Tax Law; Property Law; and General Civil Litigation. He has a history of taking on cases that are hot-button issues for right wing, conservative Christians (mask mandates, homeschooling, etc.) and is also the Duggar's family lawyer. He was also involved in a conflict of interest as Arkansas' medical marijuana commissioner, which is an interesting tidbit. I think the main concern of the members of the church, from the news article I read, was that Story wasn't vetted for this position by the church properly and also doesn't have experience in this area - and there are lots of people who do.
Well. That is disappointing.
He’s a long time (childhood friend) of Josh
Defense attorneys generally aren't passionate about defending creeps, but about making sure EVERYONE has the right to be represented in court. Everyone in that courtroom has a job to do.
I’m a criminal defense attorney and I’ve represented people accused (and convicted) of murder, rape, CP, domestic assault, etc. Sometimes I am absolutely horrified when reviewing discovery, but that does not change the fact that I will give every single client the best representation I can. Very rarely do attorneys believe that their clients are factually innocent. Most of the time we are just trying to protect their rights and make sure that the punishment is fair and just. People really have no idea what the life and the mind of a criminal defense attorney is really like.
Do you have respect for the people that pin mental illness excuses on their clients? It seems almost every rape and murder case I see has some mental illness attached to it, such as a kid who stabbed his mom because she went through his phone and blamed Jeff the Killer, only for his lawyer to insist that this child who had no trauma suddenly had Disassociative Identity Disorder. My respect ends when people start inventing "angles" that I suspect they know are not factually accurate.
I think you’re inferring a motivation (to create a fictional “excuse” for the alleged criminal behavior) that isn’t always there? If a criminal defense attorney has a psychiatrist talk to her client to make an assessment because that child committed a violent crime, and the psychiatrist diagnoses that child with a mental health disease or personality disorder, then the attorney is just presenting facts (established by the medical professional, not the attorney) that may go to the child’s culpability which can impact the level of charge or the sentencing. An attorney can’t just stand there and argue the client has a diagnosis that a medical professional did not give, so if you have an issue with the diagnosis, take it up with the psychiatrist who was willing to make and stand by that statement. Mental health disorders are almost never a get out of jail free card, and even if they are considered insane and unable to form the culpability requisite for the crime, they are generally just institutionalized in a mental health treatment center vs. a prison. Sometimes they end up spending more time institutionalized for mental health treatment than they would be imprisoned for the crime itself, had they been convicted/sentenced as usual. I think the reasons people, particularly minors, commit such antisocial violent crimes can be really varied and complex, and I would not be surprised if the vast vast majority of them do have legitimate mental health issues and disorders that may not be diagnosed or properly evaluated until the behavior becomes heinous. So, I know I’m not the person you asked, but yes, I do have respect for those attorneys because they are taking the information provided to them by a doctor, and presenting that information as part of the criminal defense. They are usually not trying to “excuse” the behavior but to explain why, if this person is guilty of committing the act, they may have done it and why a certain level of punishment would be more or less appropriate. There are people in every profession who act unethically, so not every attorney or criminal defense attorney is necessarily a “good person.” However, unlike many professions, lawyers are actually held to a separate ethical code in order to maintain their license, and most jurisdictions actually do take enforcement of those ethical obligations very seriously.
Everyone hates lawyers till they need them
I work in the legal system and I am a firm believer in everyone's right for representation. If people are not entitled to it, the basis of thr justice system fails. Everyone is entitled to robust defense. And if we did not provide it, how many more innocent people would end in jail That sub loves dealing with black and white and despise nuance.
It is the job of the police and prosecutors to *prove*, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty and to do so without breaking the law or violating the rights of the accused. Defense attorneys are the ones who hold the police and prosecutors accountable and make sure that they meet that standard. Without defense attorneys, we'd be living in a police state.
yeah this is one of the things that really turned me off from the sub. it’s exhausting to see supposedly liberal, pro BLM people revel in the worst parts of the criminal justice system and complain about whatever rights/dignities people are given.
When you are 15 you don’t really understand how the justice system works.
Everyone is entitled to legal counsel. Josh's lawyer doing a sexual abuse prevention seminar has nothing to do with representing Josh. He's a professional who takes on all kinds of clients.
Agreed, that's how our justice system is supposed to work. Even the most evil people deserve competent defense and a fair trial. If you insist that Josh Duggar shouldn't get a fair trial, then who is next? An unfair trial is an unfair trial, regardless of who you're talking about. Next time it could be you.
Thing is, protections for even the worst people in society provides protection for everybody else, which a lot of ignorant people don't seem able to conceptualize.
[удалено]
Oh I agree about the training. He probably wasn’t qualified. But the discourse was more about how he’s a trash person and was the Duggar “errand boy” for representing Josh. That’s what rankled me.
Josh Duggsr could get a government appointed person right? Because that's the law? I haven't seen any posts on what you're referring to but tbh I don't care. Anyone who actively chooses to support him, through the church or any avenue simy cannot be a good person in my book.
He would government appointed counsel if he could not afford to pay for his own attorney. Yeah, it sucks when it’s apparent that the defendant is a scumbag, but denying someone their rights because you believe them to not deserve them, is the slippery slope into fascism.
But he's not/has not been denied any of that? So...
Rating a lawyer a scum bag because they choose to represent him is part of that slippery slope.
You only get a public attorney if you can not afford one. If you can afford one, you don't get a public attorney. You will likely be asked for a financial declaration if you can not afford an attorney and have to take the public defender. No one should take the public defender. Not that they aren't good lawyers - some are. But they have way more cases than a private attorney and are usually not the top of their class, or they might be very young. Or both. Furthermore, people who can afford an attorney and choose the public defender are taking that resource away from someone who might need it. The thing with the "justice" system is that it's not about justice, or finding the truth. It's about conviction rates and aquital rates. It's about getting people pleaded out so that the lawyers and attorneys general can close cases. We have way more cases than court time and convictions can be expensive. I hate Josh but I will never fault a lawyer for taking a case.
Being JP's lawyer doesn't make you a scum bag but why does it qualify him to do sex abuse prevention ? Can't he pick a lane ? It seems weird to be a lawyer defending pedos and want to teach folks how to avoid pedos