An Easy Way Out?

Tweet

I have just been thinking and while this is U.S. based feel free to share your thoughts on this. Lawyers are a bad thing. Now wait besides the fast talking lawyers and so on that people see on law shows or even in actual court, overall lawyers are a very bad thing to have in my opinion. Imagine these two cases: You are the judge or on the jury of a trial. The defendant has committed a small crime, is going for custody in court, or something along those lines. Lets go with the two different examples. In CASE 1 (The custody case) you have two parents or one parent represented by a lawyer. The lawyer speaks for them, "conveys" their intentions, and the represented parent seems to be the ideal best candidate. Now stop. You know nothing about this other parent, their capabilities, their mental capacity, etc. Yet the represented parent seems more of the better parent because of someone PAID to lie for them almost like paying someone to make you look better by comparison. You could possibly be sending a child to a bad home because the parent has a PAID advertiser so to speak. In CASE 2 (The criminal trial) you have a defendant who is in fact guilty. However, it is up to you as the judge or jury member to decide on this. The prosecution presents the case of the victim and the crime does sound pretty bad. Now the defendant's lawyer presents his client in another light as is his job and shows a side of the defendant that couldn't have done those things even though the person is guilty. The defendant gets on the stand and speaks answering carefully controlled questions and a few questions he was prepped for to expect. Now the judge/jury gets to decide their fate and thanks to a good representative they get off on a crime they committed. ~~~~~~ I think that there should not be lawyers but a type of counsel in which lawyers help a client prepare their case and tell them some of the laws that apply and how not to break the law in court. Referencing old cases should be irrelevant considering its a new case with different people regardless of some similarities. This way a jury or judge can get an actual view of the person and an actual perhaps feel or understanding of the person more than just what someone is saying on their behalf. A lawyer is supposed to make their clients look good but the fact is that its no difference than someone you might ask to be a reference on a job application other than you can assure they are paid to lie for you. Now some people say no.. thats perjury and they can't lie but most are protected by immunity in court. How? Well all they technically have to say is that their client didn't relay the information if it affects their business. Thanks to "good" lawyers a lot of criminals can get off, truly bad parents entrusted with children, etc. because all a judge or jury will hear is the lawyer and not the person that is on trial or asking for something. I think that there could be a lot of people better off if this wasn't such a huge overwhelming factor in their cases. What is easier to fall asleep with having the knowledge of: the fact that you made a decision based on a PAID representative that is to make the person look good OR the fact you made a decision based on actually talking to the person asking for/accused of a crime?