jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (5 posts)

Are civil rights lawyers responsible for our loss of civil rights?

  1. Brisbanelocksmith profile image70
    Brisbanelocksmithposted 5 years ago

    Are civil rights lawyers responsible for our loss of civil rights?

    I am referring to the civil rights lawyers that defend the scum of our society.  For example the organized crime gangs that recruit kids to sell drugs.
    They keep civil rights lawyers on retainer and the police will not go any where near them as they are afraid of getting sued. 
    The politicians keep making new laws in an attempt to be able to prosecute these criminals but in dong so infringe on the civil rights of the common citizen. 
    Do you think civil rights lawyers have the right in our society to defend the scummiest criminals at the expense of our freedom?

  2. skeltop profile image73
    skeltopposted 5 years ago

    As I am one of those "civil rights lawyers" that you appear to believe act in no wise in the interest of the law except against it, I would be pleased to respond.  However, I am a lawyer, and thus need more FACTS.  First, I have a completely different definition of "civil rights lawyers."  To which specific "civil rights lawyers" are you referring?  To what "organize crime gangs" are you referring?  Which "police" avoid their duty because of fear of suit?  Which politicians are making these objectionable new laws?  What are the objectionable new laws?  How do you see these unspecified new laws as an infringement on your rights?  Is it the "right" of a lawyer to provide a defense to an accused, or the accused's right to a defense?  How is an accused's right, if you see any, to a defense provided at the expense of your freedom?  Which freedom?  I note that you placed your question under "civil disobedience."  If you are disobedient to civil authority, are you entitled to a defense?  Or are you entitled to define the law as you see fit, and thus avoid prosecution?  I would like to be helpful, but cannot without further clarification.

    1. Brisbanelocksmith profile image70
      Brisbanelocksmithposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly! Excellent post.

  3. Brisbanelocksmith profile image70
    Brisbanelocksmithposted 5 years ago

    Ok I know most of you are American so I will try to find an American example.

    Rico act. (Thank you google)
    In America you have the RICO act.
    It was originally made in the 1970's to prosecute the mafia, who could pay the best civil rights lawyers and were pretty much untouchable because of the lawyers.

    So your law makers made the RICO act to prosecute the mafia and organized crime gangs. 
    The laws had to be made no thanks to the civil rights lawyers employed by the criminals.

    In 1979 the federal government tried to prosecute the Hells Angels under the Rico act.  It was not successful.

    The Catholic Church was also unsuccessfully tried under RICO for sex crimes.

    But Right to Life activists were successfully prosecuted under RICO and so was an organization employing illegal aliens.

    So a law made to prosecute criminal organizations like the mafia is being used on organizations employing little green men and used for political purposes prosecuting people that do not believe in abortion.

    I am sure there are more examples.  I hear there are laws which allow people in American  to be incarcerated for long periods of time with out legal representation.  I am guessing this is due to the civil rights lawyers getting the real scumbags let off.

  4. NiaLee profile image59
    NiaLeeposted 4 years ago

    Civil rights lawyers for most like other lawyers work for their fees... that is the main point!!