Man denied law license in AZ

[iago]

Hmm, I didn't read in the article where he was applying for a nanny position.  He has graduated from law school and is applying for the state bar.  This would enable him to be someone's legal representative who has accused of wrongdoing.  How could he be in any other job which is more closely watched by the judicial system than for him to spend 60 hours a week in court cases?

Also they're a little pissed because he "never accepted full responsibility for his crimes" .. well what if he is innocent and found guilty?  That HAS happened and quite more often than you would think.  A person in that position is more likely to want to enter law and represent people so they don't get screwed over like he did.

He did it, he said he did it, he said he didnt mean to do it though.

I recall reading something along the lines of him saying he just wanted to rob them, then it got complicated & he killed them.  His fault, his bad, his problem.
He is a murderer, a cold bolded evil man.

I don't see how your last statement follows from your premise.  Shit happened, he's sorry about it.  He's paid his tie, and is ready to go back to being a functional member of society.  As I said, if he has gone through law school, he's obviously trying to be a useful member of society, so why discourage that?  People, once they're out of jail, should be encouraged to live a normal life, otherwise they're going to go back to crime and make the world a worse place.

Although there is something to be said about lawyers making the world an even worse place than criminals, but....

[Forged]

He passed the bar, if I were him I would move out of arizona and get my licences else where.

He mya have to move out of the country to do that (I hope)

He should be forced to spend the rest of is life working at mcdonalds because he made a mistake in the 1960's?  Granted it was a huge fucking mistake, but it was also a long time ago and he has already served his time out.  I think if he bothers to take this to the courts he will probablly win, this is blatant discrimination.

[CrAz3D]

This guy robbed people for drugs/drug money (I dont remeber) & ended up killing them.

As a lawyer you are expected to be a 'good' person in the sense that you have a high moral standard.  You are dealing with people's lives (criminal & civil law) as a lawyer.  This man showed he had no regard for the basic human being, why should he be trusted with a little old lady's $2.3 million will?...he could easily decieve her and the reap a whole new benfit.  Why doesn't he get a job in construction?...that isn't hard to do, money is good right now, & eventhough houses can be life & death, it is easier to spot someone duping you over while they build your dream home.

HOW IS THAT DISCRIMINATION!?
Discrimination is treatment based on class/category, not individual merit.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discrimination
His individual merit is that he murdered two living souls in cold blood.  Could you forgive that man if he had killed your parents & was let out 17 years later only to  be sworn to uphold the law in every aspect.

[Adron]

how so?

Well, they have made it quite clear that they do not want criminals to abandon crime and turn into lawful citizens. Once a criminal - always a criminal. What would that be if not encouraging crime?

[CrAz3D]

You can't tell me that you really believe that.

[Adron]

You can't tell me that you really believe that.

I 100% believe that. If a man spends 17 years in prison, then goes through law school, that is plenty of time to have changed his mind about things. People can get religious and completely reformed in a matter of months. This decision of theirs is just spitting justice in the face.

[CrAz3D]

Spitting justice in the face?
Do you really think that it is just that this man is alive & well after being fed & clothed & watching cable TV for 17 years while there are two families that will never see thie relatives again?  Is it just that some kid may no longer have a father?  Is it just that those two people no longer live while he can enjoy a good sunny day or a delicious meal?
Is that really just?

[Arta]

The details of the crime are completely irrelevant. He was tried, prosecuted, served his time, and was released. Upon release, he should have the same rights and privileges as any other citizen.

[Forged]

Spitting justice in the face?
  Is it just that some kid may no longer have a father?  Is it just that those two people no longer live while he can enjoy a good sunny day or a delicious meal?
Is that really just?

Using your logic...  These people that where killed were drug dealers.  They kill people with their poison and they break the law.  The don't deserve to have a family or enjoy the sun, they should be stuck in a jail cell for the next 30 years.  Then, when they get out, they can be forced to work a low paying job even though they have law degrees, and when the hit 65 they will be denied social security because they fucked up when they where kids.

[Grok]

Adron is entirely correct.  If you pass judgment on someone, apply a sentence, and the person completes that sentence, you must either treat him like a regular citizen when done, or treat him like a criminal.  If you're treating him like a regular citizen, then he should have all the rights and responsibilities of one.  If you are treating him like a criminal, then you are saying there is further sentencing which was not disclosed -- i.e. secret sentencing.  If you are applying secret sentencing, punishments not disclosed at the time of judgment, then you should throw out the previous trial and grant a retrial, this time with honesty.

[Adron]

Spitting justice in the face?
  Is it just that some kid may no longer have a father?  Is it just that those two people no longer live while he can enjoy a good sunny day or a delicious meal?
Is that really just?

Using your logic...  These people that where killed were drug dealers.

Actually, let's get even more logical. Those people he killed were drug dealers. They deserved death. We should give this guy a medal and make him president.

Well, or we should put Bush in prison at least 17 years. It can't be just that people get sentenced to death by the state, so that some kid may no longer have a father, and the governor later gets made a president?

You appeal to our emotions for children, sunny days and good meals. But this is about justice, about serving a penalty, and about eventually becoming a law-abiding citizen. Or to remain a criminal forever.

[CrAz3D]

Felons aren't regular citizens though.  It is common knowledge that felons do not have the same rights as law biding citizens as I recall learning


Looking through the 15th ammendment I guess that felons can/should vote.


Another situation:
Guy molests kids for 20 years.  Guy goes to prison for 5 years.  Guy gets teaching certificate & applies to get a teaching job w/young kids.  Should he be allowed in?
For those of you that say yes, do you have kids?

Spitting justice in the face?
  Is it just that some kid may no longer have a father?  Is it just that those two people no longer live while he can enjoy a good sunny day or a delicious meal?
Is that really just?

Using your logic...  These people that where killed were drug dealers.

Actually, let's get even more logical. Those people he killed were drug dealers. They deserved death. We should give this guy a medal and make him president.

Well, or we should put Bush in prison at least 17 years. It can't be just that people get sentenced to death by the state, so that some kid may no longer have a father, and the governor later gets made a president?

You appeal to our emotions for children, sunny days and good meals. But this is about justice, about serving a penalty, and about eventually becoming a law-abiding citizen. Or to remain a criminal forever.

Actually, he was the drug dealer enabling others to get high.
Sure they shouldn't be buy drugs, but he sure as hell wasn't doing anyone a service by killing them, he was the dealer.

Why should Bush go to prison?  Because a grown man/woman chose to put themselves in harms way?  Their choice.

I appeal to feelings because that is the gu instinct of what is right and wrong in society.

[iago]

Felons aren't regular citizens though.  It is common knowledge that felons do not have the same rights as law biding citizens as I recall learning

This is right back to the argument that went on a few weeks ago, about the point of jail. 

I think the bottom line is, If criminals AREN'T in jail to be rehabilitated, and they are probably going to commit the crime again, they should be put to death.  Releasing a man who's going to kill back into society, whether or not he's a lawyer, he can easily kill again.  So he should be put to death.  A child rapist will probably rape children again, whether or not he's a teacher, to put him to death.  Kill 'em All.

[Arta]

Felons aren't regular citizens though.  It is common knowledge that felons do not have the same rights as law biding citizens as I recall learning

That's bad.

Another situation:
Guy molests kids for 20 years.  Guy goes to prison for 5 years.  Guy gets teaching certificate & applies to get a teaching job w/young kids.  Should he be allowed in?
For those of you that say yes, do you have kids?

That's appeal to ridicule. The situation you describe is unrealistic.

Nonetheless, I will answer: if, following his sentence, he is still judged to be a risk, then his sentence was insufficient or inappropriately designed. Had he been sentenced correctly, he would no longer be a risk to children, and should be able to teach if he so desires. This is why sentencing should concentrate on rehabilitation rather than revenge: paedophiles should be hospitalised, not imprisoned.

I appeal to feelings because that is the gu instinct of what is right and wrong in society.

That is entirely erroneous. Feelings are subjective, inquantifiable, and frequently illogical. Reason, not emotion, is the most appropriate tool for debate.

Additionally, I take issue with your assertion that people's feelings are a good indicator of the 'rights and wrongs' of society. Throughout history, things have been commonly accepted -- in other words, things that people have not had strong feelings against --- that we now consider bad. Examples: slavery, torture, feudal systems of government, dictatorship, rigid class systems.

Appeal to emotion is a bad debating technique: it generally only appeals to people who agree with you. Emotion is fickle. Reason is robust.

[CrAz3D]

Appeal to ridicule looks like stuff that could be possible.  I could get shorter (not much) when I drive.  The gorilla thing is claimed wrong since gorillas stem from the same ancestors we do (as I understood from my anthro class).

Emotion & reason both say a murderer shouldn't be treated the same as a full functioning man of society