Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession  (Read 4287 times)

legalgod

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • Email
The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« on: July 23, 2005, 01:31:43 PM »
I'm tired of LSDers considering Garkunkle, BAFF, jwilcox, power "trolls." Their weak trolling is considered chicken crap compared to my prestigious schtick. My blood is holier/bluer than your bruises from my prestigious cock-slapping.

The purpose of the legal profession is to ensure that the elites of society maintain power over the levers of social control.

The legal profession allows the elites of the world to prevent change and maintain control by manipulating the laws of society to protect elite interests.

This is a good thing. The legal profession, and society in general, will become corroded from the inside if the underclass is allowed to enter the legal realm. This is why I believe elite schools should require minimum family incomes and prestigious last names prior to admitting candidates.

You will likely ask about public interest. Public interest is a sham used to deflect criticism of the legal profession's true objective, which is to keep the elites where they are. Sure, I'll volunteer for a couple hours one weekend. Surely this will alleviate the system of inequalities I strive to nurture.

Also, note that the vast majority of public interest lawyers went to TTTs. Elites humbly step up to their true role of running the world. Public interest just does not fit into the equation.

The same is true of public defenders, who are usually terrible TTT lawyers.

Face it people- the legal profession is the best vehicle elites have to control society such that the underclass is forever oppressed. Those of you who are elite must join the struggle to ensure that the U.S. remains a stratified society.

I will do my part to ensure that non-elites never advance. I simply ask you to do the same.


jwilcox1024

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
    • View Profile
Re: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2005, 02:07:00 PM »
heh this is obviously a n00b. I don't think I have ever been called a troll before. Must've just pulled my name off the Who is the Real King poll.
Goal: Penn, NYU, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, Chicago
Pad Save: Columbia
Glove Save: Stanford

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=jwilcox1024

angelus

  • Guest
Re: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2005, 02:37:44 PM »
Techically true to a point. But, you have elites in all aspects of society. Also, compared to earlier times in history the Legal Profession has become easier to get into, thus assisting one to become one of the elite.

I'm tired of LSDers considering Garkunkle, BAFF, jwilcox, power "trolls." Their weak trolling is considered chicken darn compared to my prestigious schtick. My blood is holier/bluer than your bruises from my prestigious cock-slapping.

The purpose of the legal profession is to ensure that the elites of society maintain power over the levers of social control.

The legal profession allows the elites of the world to prevent change and maintain control by manipulating the laws of society to protect elite interests.

This is a good thing. The legal profession, and society in general, will become corroded from the inside if the underclass is allowed to enter the legal realm. This is why I believe elite schools should require minimum family incomes and prestigious last names prior to admitting candidates.

You will likely ask about public interest. Public interest is a sham used to deflect criticism of the legal profession's true objective, which is to keep the elites where they are. Sure, I'll volunteer for a couple hours one weekend. Surely this will alleviate the system of inequalities I strive to nurture.

Also, note that the vast majority of public interest lawyers went to TTTs. Elites humbly step up to their true role of running the world. Public interest just does not fit into the equation.

The same is true of public defenders, who are usually terrible third tier toilet lawyers.

Face it people- the legal profession is the best vehicle elites have to control society such that the underclass is forever oppressed. Those of you who are elite must join the struggle to ensure that the U.S. remains a stratified society.

I will do my part to ensure that non-elites never advance. I simply ask you to do the same.



insideout

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
LAW PREVENTS SOCIAL CHANGE
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2005, 03:42:21 AM »
Quote
I'm tired of LSDers considering Garkunkle, BAFF, jwilcox, power "trolls." Their weak trolling is considered chicken darn compared to my prestigious schtick. My blood is holier/bluer than your bruises from my prestigious cock-slapping.

Indeed! All these trolls should go to the woods to complete their "mission". I mean, relying on law to transform people's behavior is always risky and often short-sighted. Instead of a technologial quick fix, people (like them) should radically transform social structures so that beneficial behavior develops naturally under the circumstances rather than because of legal threats or the mystification of legitimacy.

I guess they should become more familiar with the literatures on value change and empowerment, social movement participation, and utopian communities; they should be advocates for radical perspectives defensible on both psychological and political grounds, in keeping with values such as dignity, autonomy, equality, and justice. Well-meaning efforts by liberal psychologists to reform the law in keeping with values such as dignity, privacy, justice, and equality are often misguided because law exists to serve the status quo. Law inhibits the systemic, radical social change necessary for psychological and societal well-being. It does so through coercive power, substantive assumptions about human nature, the ideology of law's legitimacy, a preoccupation with procedure rather than substance, a focus on rational technicality rather than equity, and encouragement for limited, self-defeating legal solutions. Psycholegal scholars should arouse public dissatisfaction with law and assist social movements seeking to overcome legal impediments to social change.

Instead of compatibility between law and psychology, conflict should be identified. Instead of minor reform as reasonable, people should see it too often as a hindrance to social transformation. And instead of law being a useful tool, people should see it as an inevitable weapon against radical activism. Law, in short, is an an opponent rather than an ally of those seeking fundamental change.

Much psycholegal work is already relevant to the maintenance function of law. What is needed is a reexamination of this function from the perspective of an outsider rather than an insider.

1. Heavy Handed Use of Coercive Power

The first way that law presents social change is obvious: Coercion. As Lawrence Friedman put it, "Law has its hidden persuaders -- its moral basis, its legitimacy -- but in the last analysis it has force, too, to back it up. Law carries a powerful stick: the threat of force. This is the fist inside its velvet glove. Law is used directly and indirectly to hinder both legal and illegal social change efforts. Electoral challenges, for example, are deflected by state legislatures, which devise unreasonable deadlines, excessive petition requirements, and other hassles to keep third parties off the ballot. As an old anarchist slogan put it, "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal."

Activists fare little better in court. Given litigation delays, costs, procedural pitfalls, and judges' backgrounds, radicals are rarely successful. The doctrines of standing, governmental immunity, and political questions, the substance of conservative legal principles, and the likelihood of reversal upon appeal limit how much even a sympathetic judge can allow activists to win. Since law is created by the powerful rather than the weak, dissident concerns are often simply dismissed as frivolous. When activists demonstrate peacefully, they often find the law against them. Although it is no longer legitimate to arrest those who advocate change, the benign view of our "First Amendment freedoms" has a fairly short history, and has never been as absolute as many think. In the wake of the Persian Gulf War, and remembering the recent treatment given flag burners, any confidence that the public supports truly free speech is unwarranted. Surveillance, infliltration, and repression of legal activist groups continue.

Harassment of activists doesn't come just from government. Corporations often file libel and other lawsuits against people who use letters to newspapers, public statements, and similar methods to criticize corporate projects such as toxic waste dumps. More than 1000 of these "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" have been filed within the past decade. Although most of these suits are legally "unsuccessful" in that free speech rights are upheld and the activist pays no damages, the suits serve their purposes of transforming political debates into private disputes and, more significantly, tieing up activist's time and resources, bankrupting the activist, often causing the abandonment of public advocacy. When activists move on to direct action and civil disobedience, law's coercive force is clearest. Police infiltration and instigation of violent activities, selective prosecution, and preventive detention add to the likelihood of guilty verdicts and disproportionate sentences. Judges usually prevent defendants from presenting a necessity defense based on their motivations for breaking the law. When the jury is told the incident is a "simple trespassing case," for example, rather than a political act, the primary concern of the activist is dismissed as irrelevant. Similarly, judges in most states do not tell juries about jury nullification, which allows jurors to acquit despite the evidence. The result in both cases is that activists are likely to be convicted even if the jury is sympathetic.

In response to legal coercion, psychologists have helped defend political defendants, and this help should be expanded. Despite the value of these efforts, though, their limitations should be kept in mind. Tools devised for radical purposes cannot be restricted to those ends; any useful methods will be adopted by more powerful forces. For example, scientific jury selection, developed to help the Harrisburg Seven defend themselves against Vietnam-era conspiracy charges, is mostly used today not by activists but by large corporations paying high fees to Litigation Sciences and similar companies.

2. Substantive Assumptions About Human Nature

The second way law opposes social change is through its assumptions about human behavior. Psychologists seek to identify these, but more attention should be paid to two underlying assumptions discussed by June Tapp. "The myth of humankind's inherent lawlessness," according to Tapp, ignores the fact that "the search for rules and rule dependency appears early in human life and is visible across all activity from games to government and language to law." "In essence," she added, "no community is truly lawless," and adherence to the myth perpetuates a law-and-order mentality.

The flip side of the lawlessness myth is the legality myth. As Tapp noted, "The crippling aspect of the legality myth is the assumption that legality and its correlates of justice, obligation, and responsibility reside only in the law .... If [this] continues ... then the emergence of an authoritarian repressive law is more likely. Both myths lead us to see calls for social change as dangerous rather than liberating.

insideout

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« Reply #4 on: July 31, 2005, 03:43:07 AM »
3. The Ideology of Law's Legitimacy

The third way law inhibits social change is through the central myth that the law is "legitimate," that obedience to law is appropriate because legal authorities have the right to make demands. This belief, according to Friedman, "prevents anarchy and induces people to obey orders and commands without the use of force." Legitimacy is necessary for the political system to continue in its current form, since (as Haney put it) "in a very real sense, the 'consent of the governed' depends upon such fictions," including the fiction that law is sacred. Psycholegal scholars who assume law's legitimacy should consider the degree to which their own views are shaped by the legitimacy ideology. Isaac Prilleltensky recently noted that "At best, psychology's conforming message may be preventing changes that could enhance the well-being of the population. At worst, it may be silently endorsing unjust social practices," reinforcing dominant values through so-called value-free scientific statements that provide an asocial image of the human being ... essentially independent from sociohistorical circumstances. This leads people to underestimate the impact of adverse social conditions on their lives, thereby reducing the likelihood of engaging in activities in defiance of the status quo.
 
4. Preoccupation With Procedure Rather Than Substance

The fourth way law opposes social change is in blunting appeals for substantive justice by focusing instead on procedural justice. As Tom Tyler noted, research such as his on procedural justice poses a potential danger when it identifies the degree to which legal procedures are seen as satisfying or fair, because "Government leaders may find it easier to create conditions of 'perceived fairness' than to solve problems or provide needed benefits." Although Tyler minimized the possibility of this false consciousness, Haney saw this as the Supreme Court's "let them eat due process approach." Rather than remaining neutral and dispassionate, exposing false consciousness should be one of our central concerns.

5. Focus on Rational Technicality Rather Than Equity

The fifth way law stands against social change is the insistence that "the rule of law" is superior to non-law, that the United States is a "government of law, not of men." Related to the lawlessness and legality myths is the assumption that problems should be resolved through law -- seen as objective, rational, and hardnosed -- rather than through non-legal means -- seen as subjective, ruthless, and unpredictable. Law is better, it is said, even if the application of general principle to a particular case brings an unfair result, because the only alternative to law is chaos. The opposite of legal technicality, however, is not chaos, but equity. Under equity principles, legal technicalities can be set aside to prevent injustice. As might be expected, although equity's use as a discretionary corrective is accepted in theory in most legal systems, in practice judges often dismiss it precisely because equity implies that the law is inadequate. Consequently, equity has been limited to narrow areas of law and to relatively ineffective remedies. As already noted, judges resist application of equity-like doctrines such as jury nullification and the necessity defense.

6. The Self-Defeating Character of Legal Solutions

The final way law opposes social change has to do with the self-defeating character of legal solutions, despite their seductive appeal. There are three points to be made. First, reform is seductive because it assumes that law can be transformed so significantly that it will operate at a "higher principled level," as Tapp put it. This is doubtful, though, because the reasons for which law exists conflict with principled levels of reasoning and ethics. Law exists to maintain rather than change the status quo, to protect some at the expense of others, to control rather than liberate. Second, reform efforts may succeed, but at the cost of unpredicted "side-effects" that complicate other problems or lead to long-term failure. A systems perspective must acknowledge that social problems are interconnected rather than isolated. Third, and most important, the very success of legal solutions makes things worse, because legal solutions reduce people's ability and motivation to work together with others on community solutions to social problems. Legal reforms may work, but only by forcing complex human interactions into an artificial framework, creating dependency on legal authorities. Black noted that "in theory, law makes trustworthiness unnecessary, even obsolete. When law is fully in command, morality itself loses relevance. Right and wrong become a specialty of professionals such as lawyers, police, and judges." McBride argued that law "has an alienating or even a repressive effect . . . , especially on those who occupy subordinate social roles." And Lerner pointed out that law teaches us that we are not capable of being good unless we are forced to be good.

SkullTatt

  • Guest
Re: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« Reply #5 on: July 31, 2005, 02:14:08 PM »
Damn, I want to be a "power troll."

coopt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2005, 03:43:04 AM »
Quote
The legal profession, and society in general, will become corroded from the inside if the underclass is allowed to enter the legal realm. This is why I believe elite schools should require minimum family incomes and prestigious last names prior to admitting candidates.

Well, power would harness power, but power lies in the flow itself, in the broad and deep currents that transverse society. And, in fact, capitalism has understood something of this and sought to harness the flows (the opposition of those who would naturally go against the grain -- the underclass as you call 'em) without trying to freeze them. In other words, assimilation aimed at reintegrating the antagonistic forces.

angelus

  • Guest
Re: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2005, 11:33:15 AM »
Quote
The legal profession, and society in general, will become corroded from the inside if the underclass is allowed to enter the legal realm. This is why I believe elite schools should require minimum family incomes and prestigious last names prior to admitting candidates.

Well, power would harness power, but power lies in the flow itself, in the broad and deep currents that transverse society. And, in fact, capitalism has understood something of this and sought to harness the flows (the opposition of those who would naturally go against the grain -- the underclass as you call 'em) without trying to freeze them. In other words, assimilation aimed at reintegrating the antagonistic forces.

Are you saying that people are poor because they are antagonistic towards society? Are you saying the poor should be punished fo being poor?

If so then you are trully ignorant regarding poverty and the economis structure of our society. Please walk into a library and educate yourself.

mercedes

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2005, 05:57:39 AM »
Jesus, in a very worried state, convened all of his apostles and disciples to an emergency meeting because of the high drug consumption problem all over the earth.

After giving it much thought they reached the conclusion that in order to better deal with the problem, that they should try the drugs themselves and then decide on the correct way to proceed. It was therefore decided that a commission made up of some of the members return to earth to get the different types of drugs.

The secret operation is effected and two days later the commissioned disciples begin to return to heaven. Jesus, waiting at the door, lets in the first disciple:

"Who is it?"

"It's Paul" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Paul?"

"Hashish from Morocco" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

It's Mark" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Mark?"

"Marijuana from Colombia" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

"It's Matthew" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Matthew ?"

"Cocaine from Bolivia" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

"It's John" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring John ?"

"Crack from New York" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

It's Luke" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Luke ?"

"Speed from Amsterdam" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

"It's Judas" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Judas ?"

"The FBI, YOU SCUMBALLS! EVERYONE ASSUME THE POSITION AGAINST THE WALL!"

bikoz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: The True Purpose of the Legal Profession
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2005, 01:36:21 AM »
Jesus, in a very worried state, convened all of his apostles and disciples to an emergency meeting because of the high drug consumption problem all over the earth.

After giving it much thought they reached the conclusion that in order to better deal with the problem, that they should try the drugs themselves and then decide on the correct way to proceed. It was therefore decided that a commission made up of some of the members return to earth to get the different types of drugs.

The secret operation is effected and two days later the commissioned disciples begin to return to heaven. Jesus, waiting at the door, lets in the first disciple:

"Who is it?"

"It's Paul" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Paul?"

"Hashish from Morocco" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

It's Mark" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Mark?"

"Marijuana from Colombia" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

"It's Matthew" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Matthew ?"

"Cocaine from Bolivia" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

"It's John" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring John ?"

"Crack from New York" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

It's Luke" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Luke ?"

"Speed from Amsterdam" "Very well son, come in."

"Who is it?"

"It's Judas" Jesus opens the door.

"What did you bring Judas ?"

"The FBI, YOU SCUMBALLS! EVERYONE ASSUME THE POSITION AGAINST THE WALL!"

LOL mercedes, I know what you mean!