[Thommas]

Being a lawyer has nothing to do with it.

Ah, but it does. If you were a lawyer, then you would know that ethics and morality can be easily twisted to serve your own needs, pet theory, or client's interests. In short, a lawyer can and does rationalize anything and everything to do his/her job.

This is what is so infuriating when discussing a topic with one; he/she will take one side of an issue and spend forever defending it, debating it. Right and Wrong has nothing to do with WINNING the debate, discussion, argument, or defense of a client's position. Get it?

:-)

[rintense]

Ah, but it does. If you were a lawyer, then you would know that ethics and morality can be easily twisted to serve your own needs, pet theory, or client's interests. In short, a lawyer can and does rationalize anything and everything to do his/her job.

Precisely why I am not a laywer. I couldn't live with myself, let alone do a job, where I am forced to compromise my own ethics and morality. I'll stick to web design... ;)

[Jaded]

Ah, but that applies to the attorneys playing on both sides of the court room. If in this case it is unthinkable for Feldman to represent someone the media says he knows is guilty and threaten with charges, is it not then reasonable to do the same for prosecutors?

There is a case in Escondito, maybe you've heard of it Stephanie Crowe. The DA was willing to prosecute 14 year old boys based on a forced confession.

My question remains, should not the same measure be used for both sides?