chran
Muse
A criminal is a person too, surely?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Doctor's shouldn't report gun shot victims? Discuss!
- Thread starter chran
- Start date
chran
Muse
Last edited:
As far as I know, the hippocratic oath basically only says they will help people regardless of different worldview, do no evil with their academic knowledge etc etc etc....
This is an issue of doctor-patient priviledge, not of the hippocratic oath.
This is an issue of doctor-patient priviledge, not of the hippocratic oath.
Shoot a man in the back ... what a ****ing hero!
In all fairness, somebody tries to shoot me - his back or front makes no difference - he never gets another chance if he misses the first one. Though I would rather he see it coming.
One of so many reasons I want to see patient/doctor/psych. etc. priviledge, lawyer/client priviledge, etc. ended.
Where actual criminal activity is concerned ( and I would want any lawyer who witholds vital - by my definition - information from police until they get guarantees of client immunity to receive the identical sentence as their client for collusion). My legal theory is all innocent people deserve full legal representation - but if guilt is known to the lawyer, it must be made known to the justice system the lawyer is supposedly a part of.
Last edited:
This is something of a derail, but I've always wondered, what does a lawyer do if he knows his client is guilty? I heard a lawyer on the radio the other day who said he'd had a client who was facing drunk driving charges. The guy was guilty as sin, but he insisted on a trial. Lawyer represented him and got him off. Said it bothered him so much that he doesn't represent drunk drivers any more.
What does a public defender do, though, under such circumstances? Does he pull out all the stops for a client he knows is guilty and is likely to go out and harm others again? Or does he do what's morally right and "mail it in," giving his client barely adequate representation? Chances are he'll want to get a plea bargain, but what if the client insists on a trial?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Keep in mind. Most criminals are dumb. My mom worked as an ER RN for years and years; most criminals with gunshot wounds, stabbings, etc did not even know that the police would be called in such a case.
My understanding is that he (the defense lawyer) mostly hopes that the prosecution screws up, which it does an uncomfortably large number of times. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with insisting that the prosecution dots all its i's and crosses all it's t's --- if nothing else, it serves notice on the prosecution that they need to make sure their ducks are in a row for other cases as well.
Obviously, he can't "pull out all the stops" to get evidence that will acquit his client -- such evidence doesn't exist, and manufacturing evidence is a crime. But just because your client is technically guilty doesn't absolve the police lab from its responsibilities to handle evidence properly, for example....
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Front, back, side--you get one chance--unless I see you first. Once you've had that, it's my turn--and I am motivated...Shoot a man in the back ... what a ****ing hero!
you missed the part where the perp had 2 buddies waiting, also with guns.
It also turns out the perp was a relative of a fellow who is going on trial for murder. The guy he tried to shoot (and who enden up doing the shooting) was a witness to the murder...
This Guy
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,140
My opinion is anyone shot with a gun falls under one of a few categories -
1. They are idiots, and should not be permitted to handle firearms (because they managed to shoot them self, and will possibly shoot someone else by accident later)
2. They know someone who fits the above description.
3. They were involved in a crime, on one side or the other of the law. In either case they should be questioned by law enforcement to determine what happened, and arrested if they were on the wrong side of the law.
If it's a case of either of the first two, the police should file a report with the local newspaper and TV stations so we can all get a laugh.
1. They are idiots, and should not be permitted to handle firearms (because they managed to shoot them self, and will possibly shoot someone else by accident later)
2. They know someone who fits the above description.
3. They were involved in a crime, on one side or the other of the law. In either case they should be questioned by law enforcement to determine what happened, and arrested if they were on the wrong side of the law.
If it's a case of either of the first two, the police should file a report with the local newspaper and TV stations so we can all get a laugh.
My opinion is anyone shot with a gun falls under one of a few categories -
1. They are idiots, and should not be permitted to handle firearms (because they managed to shoot them self, and will possibly shoot someone else by accident later)
2. They know someone who fits the above description.
3. They were involved in a crime, on one side or the other of the law. In either case they should be questioned by law enforcement to determine what happened, and arrested if they were on the wrong side of the law.
If it's a case of either of the first two, the police should file a report with the local newspaper and TV stations so we can all get a laugh.
4. They were in the company of idiots, and didn't know it. Thus, they should be questioned by law enforcement so that the idiots can be removed from society.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,912
A defense lawyer is not ethically obligated to lie for his client. He is, however, obligated to present the best honest defense available. As someone else said, it's not so much about that individual case as it is keeping the prosecution honest, so that they don't railroad someone whose guilt is more ambiguous.