Short hair extensions style 2: fluffy short hair. This is a Japanese-style ultra-short human hair extensions, the fluffy style creates human hair extensions uk a messy aesthetic, easy to hair extensions uk wick away heat and a lazy and charming temperament.

The Most Evil Thing Known to Mankind

When answering the question, “What is the most evil thing known to mankind,” many people will issue an answer quickly and with little real consideration.

Some religious folks might guess the Devil, though if such a creature exists, then God (if he exists) created him and is arguably more responsible. See “Good and Evil” in LS Subjects for more information on the necessity of evil.

Still others might recall the movie “Jaws,” and select the cold frozen-eyed killer, which glides through the midnight waters before striking mercilessly with its razor sharp teeth.

Others may pick ruthless mass-murderers like Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan, for all the lives they took and all the horrendous acts they were responsible for.

But it’s highly doubtful that God or the Devil exist.

Sharks are not evil. They simply eat. They are efficient killing machines, which rarely target humans and when they do it’s likely because they’ve made a mistake and thought a person was a walrus or other tastier animal. 

Though mass-murderers are often horribly immoral, self-serving and responsible for countless evil acts, there is another which is far worse.

So what is the most evil thing known to man?

Don’t laugh. It’s not an exaggeration.

Defense Attorneys.

Why?

Simple. Because nothing and no one is more immoral than a defense attorney.

Still you scoff, but think about it.

You’re thinking, defense attorneys don’t kill people! How can a defense attorney be worse than a mass murderer like Hitler or Genghis?

Simple. Because after Hitler and Genghis are done killing millions of innocent people, knowing full-well what they’ve done, it’s still the defense attorney who would give their best effort to get them set free, so they can do it again. So in a very real way, the defense attorney would be responsible not only for ignoring all the immoral actions that have come before, but they would be responsible for any immoral actions that take place in the future. They made it all possible.

Are you still in doubt? Incredulous?

You say, “what about a psychopath who kills people for nothing more than pleasure, or on a whim? Isn’t that more evil?”

Not really. Consider that not only would a defense attorney try to set that psychopath free, putting them in a position to kill again, but that attorney wouldn’t do it for pleasure or on a whim, they’d be doing it for the cold hard allure of easy money.

Sure, not all defense attorneys are guilty of this. Some defense attorneys might refuse to take guilty clients. A few might not get murderers off, or save corporations millions of dollars in taxes they owe the people, or not put a known child molester or rapist back on the streets. But enough do.

Isn’t it interesting that everyone puts their hand on the bible before testifying? They swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Do lawyers do that? Shouldn’t they, considering they manage much of the preceedings and present most of the information?

Imagine this…all over the country, there are defense attorneys, who listen to their clients tell them how they murdered another human being, raped an innocent girl, or molested a helpless child and instead of turning those guilty, immoral perpetrators over to the authorities, the attorneys formulate defenses that will give the guilty their best chance to avoid being brought to justice.

How did this become the system?

When did this become acceptable?

Where’s the morality in this flawed and illogical system?

When did the objective stop being justice?

How do these defense attorneys live with themselves? They are the most evil things known to man. How do they do it?

Simple. They justify their actions by saying, “Everyone deserves a fair trial and everything I’m doing is legal and according to the law. I’m a public servant, who’s helping to defend individual rights.”
That all sounds great, but it’s a bunch of intellectual psycho-babble and utter nonsense.

Let’s break those points down and analyze them.

1.    Everyone deserves a fair trial

Yes. This sounds wonderful and is a central component of the American judicial system. There’s only one problem.

The purpose of law is not to give everyone a fair trial.

The purpose of law is to enact justice.

America’s legal system has made the mistake of making trials more about a competition between adversarial lawyers than it is about implementing justice and that’s wrong.

Further, if someone is guilty and you defend them by proving they’re innocent. That’s not fairness. That’s deception and lying. There’s nothing the least bit fair about it and where is the justice in that?

Filling a courtroom with lies, misconceptions and concealment is not the same as having a fair trial.

A fair trial is a trial in which both sides have the opportunity to be heard, present relevant evidence and be considered by a group of impartial participants.

2.    Everything I’m doing is legal and by the law

Yes. Everything defense attorneys do is probably legal and by the law, but when the laws are so clearly wrong, that doesn’t absolve lawyers of their moral obligations.

During Hitler’s reign, exterminating Jewish children as if they were unwanted dogs was legal. That didn’t make it right.

People have to look beyond human laws, which are frequently errant and flawed, in order to find the universal moral laws, which form a higher ground.

The fact that defense attorneys act within the law is simply veiling their immoral actions behind a shield of transparent paper. Right and wrong is still right and wrong no matter how many words you put in legal textbooks and how much nonsense you can recite. You can convince a group of jurors that a guilty man is innocent, but you can’t convince the universe that your karma isn’t as black as soot.

3.     I’m a public servant, who’s helping to defend individual rights

Public or private, most defense attorneys serve immorality to the hilt. Defending the individual rights of the guilty at the expense of justice is the antithesis of virtuous and moral law. Most defense attorneys are to the intention of virtuous law as cold and darkness are to the warmth and brightness of a beautiful day. 

So this simply and distinctly identifies a problem. What should be done about it?
Should all the immoral defense attorneys be rounded up and summarily shot?

No. It’s not just their fault, because whether they’ve deluded themselves into believing what they’re doing is for the purpose of law, or for the greater good, or whether they know full-well they’re sucking from the Devil’s teat, the laws must be changed, the system must be reformed and the virtuous people must finally recognize this legal system is misaligned and morally bankrupt.

How can we rectify the situation?

Defense attorneys should still exist and defend clients in a court of law, however, if the attorney becomes aware that their client is guilty, by matter of evidence, or by confession, that attorney should testify for the prosecution against their client.   

Lawyer/Client confidentiality should be eliminated. If the culprit confesses to a crime, their defense attorney should notify the prosecution and pass the information along to them, in order to expedite justice.

Does this seem crazy? It shouldn’t. You see, in the previous system, withholding the truth assisted the guilty and helped adversarial lawyers compete and earn higher salaries. This new system downplays the struggle between lawyers and focuses on the real goal, obtaining justice. This can be better accomplished by lawyers who are working in conjunction to illuminate the truth.

And what if the client lies to their attorney the entire time and the attorney helps a guilty defendant go free?
Well then, at long last, there is a defense attorney who may truly be absolved of immoral doing. That attorney may truly be a public servant who is defending the rights of the individual.

The benefit to the general morality will be, that our legal system and society finally shuns this horribly immoral and inefficient legal system and that the guilty will find less refuge when the light of truth is allowed to shine from both sides of the courtroom.

The point of these legal proceedings isn’t to make the guilty comfortable. If they want to lie about everything in order to have their defense attorney help them so be it, but a nest of lies will often lay eggs. It’s difficult to build an argument on a foundation of lies. In that rickety shack, the foundation of the truth often becomes more visible.

Let’s finally realize that we need to do away with the adversarial lawyer system and concealment of the truth in order to win cases. We need to let the truth shine through in order to obtain justice and only then can we downgrade most defense attorneys from the most evil thing known to mankind and start looking for the Devil again.

 

Comments sent

9 comment(s).
Avivah - 11/8/2017 11:43:52 AM
Agreed. Best thing I've read in a LONG time. A friend's life was almost ruined by a defense attorney who got my friend's violent attacker acquitted. There should be a law that whatever the attorney uses as a defense strategy can't go outside the courtroom. The defense is legally allowed to LIE. And lie they do. In this day of fake news it's vitally important to know the facts. If you weren't there (during the attack or in the courtroom) - don't believe anything that comes out of a defense attorney's mouth.
Logical Spiritualism - 10/11/2014 4:13:48 PM
Law Student, thank you for your feedback!!!

I agree and am amazed that those questions ever found their way into an article on meeting people. You gave good feedback on that and I will change it!

FYI My site has no clip art, so you probably should refrain from slamming my clip art. Here is the definition of "Clip Art" : noun: clip art; noun: clipart simple pictures and symbols made available for computer users to add to their documents." I do have plenty of pictures on the site and whether you like them or not is irrelevant.

And finally, I fear for your future career as a lawyer, if that is your pursuit. If your defense is that lawyers are good people of sound mind and morals and you are a law student studying to be one and your best defense is a personal attack on someone's clip art that does not exist and a general and rather nebulous attack on a general body of work, you are merely helping me prove my point. A better law student would be better at debate. Thank you very much.
Law Student - 10/1/2014 6:27:01 PM
At this point, I have two options:

(1) Respond with a lengthy retort illustrating (a) the substantive complexity of criminal law--and law generally--in an effort to demonstrate that determining whether someone is guilty or not can be quite difficult, and therefore is best achieved through the adversarial process, and (b) the numerous policy goals that are furthered by attorney-client confidentiality; or

(2) Resort to ad hominem attacks and ridicule.

I choose the latter.

Clip Art: Congratulations! Your website has set the world record for "most irrelevant, low-rent, stock photos per share inch." Unfortunately, this achievement also means that no one can take anything you say seriously.

Content: I particularly like the "10 Conversation Starters" article because I know when I interact with people, the first thing I want them to think is: "Is this person a serial killer, or just a boring, socially graceless alien who recently crash landed on Earth?" Who in their right mind would walk up to someone and say "What attributes are most important to you in a potential mate?" Or: "Hi there! If you were a fruit, what fruit would you be and why? And quick follow up question, if you were a vegetable, what vegetable would you be and why?" Or: "It is so nice to meet you! What’s the worst thing that ever happened to you? Explain, because I'm sick and want to hear all the intimate details surrounding the time you--a complete stranger--were raped."

Generally: What is the overarching philosophy at work here? This site is just a wasteland of comically bad stock photos punctuating tips on how to, among other things, write resumes, get a girl to like you, have sex, raise children, lose weight, maintain an open marriage, and so on. You're really giving Hegel a run for his money here. But hey, at least it's written poorly!
Logical Spiritualism - 8/9/2014 6:13:42 PM
Well Law Student,

It is heartening that you are examining these issues as much as you are, or atleast pretending to.

It does not seem wise to opperate any society with un-written laws. That was never a proposition I put forth.

In one of your responses you said, When you defend someone as an attorney, you don't, for example, defend the act of murder. That would be immoral. Instead, you defend the person by arguing that there is insufficient evidence to convict them of murder.

This is semantics. If someone is guilty of murder and you know that and you help them get off, you ARE defending the act of murder and you ARE defending a murderer. Again, if you or Abraham Lincoln or Ghandi or anyone else can assist someone who has done something utterly morally reprehensible and negate that to a legal triviality that allows them to escape the justice system and get you paid for it and you can be okay with that on your conscience it is your problem.
Law Student - 1/27/2014 5:41:55 PM
Moreover, I don’t think it is quite accurate to say that what Hitler did was legal; I’m pretty sure there were a few human rights violations in there somewhere. But then again, what are those laws worth anyway? After all, they are just “nonsense” from a “legal textbook,” written on “transparent paper” that the lawyers for the victims of atrocities used to hide “behind.”

Maybe you’re right; maybe we should not write down laws at all. Or if we did, just stick to the "universal moral laws.” That would be easy, the entire legal system could fit on one piece of paper: “All citizens must follow the Universal Moral Laws of the Higher Ground.” Done! Everyone could just run around, having no idea what the law is, and the government could arrest anyone if it thought that person violated Moral Law. And better yet, in this universe, you could solve the evil defense attorney problem because you wouldn’t need them—they would have nothing to do because they wouldn’t have any idea what the law was either.

That would be a fine little totalitarian regime:

“Hello Mr. Smith, I’m your lawyer. You've been arrested for violating the “Higher Ground Moral Law.”

“Okay, but what does that mean?”

“I have no idea, it means whatever the government says it means.”

“Oh good, so the trial will be fast then.”

“Yes it will. I’ll just wheel you in there and the judge will let you know if you have violated the Higher Law—which, mind you, is a lot better than that dumb old human law, you know, the kind that society actually agrees to, writes down, and can comprehend. The judge, by the way, is one of those flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz. We tried using human judges, but that didn’t work because they kept using 'human laws, which are frequently errant and flawed.’ Anyway, if the judge screeches, gnashes its teeth, and flaps its wings at you, that means you have been found guilty of violating Higher Ground Law. You will then be sentenced to prison."

“But for how long?”

"I’m not sure because we don’t write laws down here, that is for dumb humans in human court. This is Higher Ground Court where anything is possible!"

“But you will defend me, right?”

“Actually, I’m not sure anymore. You don’t seem so great. In fact, I have determined that you are 'guilty, by matter of evidence,' so I have to testify for the prosecution against you. If I don’t, I will be 'sucking from the Devil’s teat.’ Goodbye, see you in Higher Ground Court.”
Law Student - 1/26/2014 3:31:55 PM
Also, in my original response, I realized that you didn’t actually say that if the lawyer thought their client was guilty, the accused would de facto be guilty. But that is the natural consequence of what your argument proposed. Either give them a lawyer or don’t. A lawyer who turns against you is not your lawyer, that’s just not what a lawyer is.

The defense lawyer is a counterweight to the powerful and sophisticated government prosecutor. The average person is not capable of defending himself; he needs a lawyer. Otherwise, the government would just be shooting fish in a barrel whenever it decided, either rightly or wrongly, to prosecute someone. And imagine trying to gather evidence in your favor while you sit in jail awaiting trial. Impossible. I think when you consider (1) that the lawyer shields individuals from the full force of arbitrary and tyrannical government power and (2) the practical necessity of having a non-criminal out in the world gathering evidence on behalf of the accused, all reasonable people can agree that defense lawyers are needed for our justice system to be fair, reliable, and safe.

But if the defense lawyer had to give evidence against their client, not only would one sophisticated expert be against the defendant, now there would be two. In that scenario, what jury is not going to convict? The point is that if the lawyers collude and give their personal conclusions to the jury, that is overwhelming evidence and would almost surely result in a conviction. As a result, the lawyers would have extraordinary power to determine who is guilty by working cooperatively against a defenseless citizen. And if we attorneys are as evil as you say, why would you want that?

To remedy this situation, I suppose we could give the defendant yet another defense attorney to replace her predecessor, but that seems like it would result in a never-ending cycle of rotating lawyers and no actual trials.

We lawyers are, for the most part, actually a very thoughtful, morally concerned bunch. We have been thinking through this legal system for literally hundreds of years. And when you call us worse than Hitler without really giving the system we created for society its fair due, it’s not fair. There is a staggering amount of ignorance about how our legal system works and why; I merely wish to present some food for thought for you and your readers.
Law Student - 1/26/2014 2:47:56 PM
You know who was a lawyer who defended murderers? Abraham Lincoln. He probably would have defended John Wilkes Booth if given the chance. Gandhi was also a lawyer. So were a majority of the founding fathers. I can assure you that all these people would defend anyone charged with a crime. Now, I know they are not as impressive as an Internet blogger who won "Most Improved Player" in high school, but surely they are not as morally bankrupt as Hitler.

Speaking of Nazis, you know what the civilized, Allied governments did after they won World War II? They put the Nazis on trial. And guess what—they had defense attorneys. And guess what else, I bet all those American and British lawyers who defended them thought they were guilty, but also felt pretty damn good about what they did. That’s because we showed everyone, especially the Nazis, that the United States will uphold its highest ideals of fairness and justice, no matter how tempting it is to deviate: We didn’t sink to their level. A fair trial means having a fair defense no matter what.

When you defend someone as an attorney, you don't, for example, defend the act of murder. That would be immoral. Instead, you defend the person by arguing that there is insufficient evidence to convict them of murder. In fact, attorneys are not allowed to tell the jury that they personally think their client is innocent; that would be considered improper and could result in a mistrial.

The whole idea motivating our system is this: By having two sides pitted against each other, they each have a single minded motivation to uncover the best and most reliable evidence of guilt on one side, and innocence on the other. It’s like a free-market, competition based approach to uncovering information. After as much evidence as possible has been gathered, it is presented in front of an independent jury who evaluates it to determine what the truth is. That’s the lawyer’s job, collecting and presenting evidence for the jury, not determine guilt. If you were on a jury and were asked to sentence someone to life in prison, wouldn’t you feel better knowing that someone gathered all the evidence showing innocence so that you could really be sure you had all the relevant information? That’s the only way to really be sure you are convicting the right person.
Logical Spiritualism - 1/18/2014 9:48:14 PM
Well, you've written this under the name "law student," so clearly you feel very strongly about the morality of your cause, so strongly in fact, that you didn't sign your name.

That being said, thank you for a fairly well considered and very well written response! If you are indeed a law student, I am heartened that you took the time to respond.

You have taken some things for granted on the basis of what was written in my article that was clearly never said. For example, if a lawyer were to turn in a guilty client, it does not mean that the defendant would automatically be considered guilty. They would still be due a fair trial and the lawyer's testimony would only be considered one piece of evidence in that trial.

Basically, if you can defend someone, who for example, murders a mother, a father and their three young children and you can get them off and go home at the end of the day and feel good about what you've done, that's up to you. I could never do that, nor can I imagine any morally adept individual feeling good about helping guilty criminals avoid their just punishments for money.

Either way, we are allowed our difference of opinions and I thank you again for your response.
Law Student - 12/15/2013 1:37:45 AM
This is a prize-winning example of the kinds of intellectual displays that make the Internet the Wild West of unbridled ignorance. Putting aside the fact that comparing Hitler to defense attorneys cheapens the atrocities that he perpetrated against your fellow humans, you obviously know nothing about the American legal system, the Constitution, or due process.

Criminal defense lawyers are required by law to defend their client to the fullest extent possible within the law. If you think about why this might be for one second, you will realize that this makes sense.

If the defense lawyer were to run and tell every time they thought their client was guilty, the lawyer would, in effect, become the judge and jury. You are saying that the only people who should have defense lawyers are the innocent and liars—what an odd combination. And who is to determine innocence? Apparently you think the lawyer should; the very person you say is worse than Hitler.

You think they should…what? Cuddle up to their client, whispering, “you can trust me, anything you tell me will be confidential. Double pinky swear.” And if the accused does confess—wham, gotcha! Faster than you can say “George Orwell,” the lawyer sprints to the prosecutor’s office to report it. Then, they team up to take down the poor fool, sending him to his doom. They wouldn’t be defense attorneys; they would be spies, gathering information for Big Brother and sending people to prison without further ado. Now that’s ethics! Apparently you want a second Inquisition.

On the one hand, you say that lawyers are evil. Yet, you trust them enough to determine who is guilty and to report their findings honestly? Imagine that. The judge says, “well, we haven’t had a trial, I haven’t heard any evidence, but your lawyer says you did it, so off to prison with you.” That’s a hell of a legal system right there, straight out of Kafka’s nightmares.

What if there was a rogue, evil defense attorney who goes around telling the judge and the prosecution that someone confessed, but they didn’t? Who is to keep the lawyer honest?

They obvious solution to this problem is to have the law the way that it is now: If the defense attorney just defends everyone the same—guilty or innocent—then this keeps the lawyer from determining guilt or innocence. They just do their job, and the jury (and sometimes the judge) determines who is guilty.

Leave your comment

* Name: 
* E-mail:   (private)
Website: 
* Your comment (max 2000 characters):

CAPTCHA    
Login to add comments without entering the verification code.