I want to be a prosecutor

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby Geetar Man » Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:45 pm

oaken wrote:
CactusPuppy wrote:I'm sorry but ruining people's lives for smoking weed is not noble. USA has some of the most unjust criminal statutes in the industrialized world, and there is nothing noble about seeking the max for violation of mostly stupid and Constitutionally repugnant laws.


You are an absolute fucking moron.



+1... 1L (cactuspuppy) ftl.

Geist13 wrote: Go ahead. Go find a single example of someone currently being prosecuted for felony possession of marijuana. Felony possession of marijuana? Are you kidding me?


I'm on your side, bro. But there are times when people are charged with a felony for possession. For instance, someone would be charged at the federal level for possession of marijuana when they are in possession of 100 (give or take) or more lbs. In all honesty, federal prosecutors really don't prosecute anything less than 400 lbs. But that's basically it. You'd basically have to have a shit ton and be selling it (obviously you wouldnt be smoking 100 lbs) and/or bringing it across state/country boundries.

User avatar
daesonesb
Posts: 499
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:18 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby daesonesb » Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:36 pm

EDIT:
Last edited by daesonesb on Sun May 06, 2012 12:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BiglawOrBust
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby BiglawOrBust » Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:23 pm

Geetar Man wrote:Speaking of fallacies, you're making a fallacy of composition; just because something might be true of one part of something doesn't make it true about the whole.


Geetar Man wrote: Putting someone in prison for using crack/meth or whatever is a good idea because those types of people are often the people who steal, kill, and what not.


So punishing someone because they merely have a higher tendency to commit a more serious crime is not also a "fallacy of composition"?

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby flcath » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:00 pm

Geist13 wrote:
Veyron wrote:Ok, the idea that there are no jobs for prosecutors is one of those lies that its a good idea to believe. As BeautifulSW often points out, there are plenty of jobs for prosecutors if you are willing to live places like rural NM but lol at you if you think you're going to get a job right off the bat as an NYC prosecutor or some such. You may get a city job eventually, but not until you've put in your time in small town america.


Agreed. Although I do sincerely question how many openings there are available in rural places for kids coming right out of school. I hear about it a lot (most on TLS actually) but I don't really believe it.

They're opening up again in Illinois; I realize that's 1 state out of 50, but it's the only state whose hiring I've followed over the past 2 years. FWIW, they all (well, "all" of the 6 or 7 counties I've talked to, including Cook) say they hire primarily new grads. I don't know if that last statement lines up with statistical reality, but I really don't think the ppl I talked to were trying to game me.


... can someone really not open a "how to become a prosecutor" thread on a law school forum without it getting derailed by bizarre political hackery?

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:23 pm

oaken wrote:
CactusPuppy wrote:I'm sorry but ruining people's lives for smoking weed is not noble. USA has some of the most unjust criminal statutes in the industrialized world, and there is nothing noble about seeking the max for violation of mostly stupid and Constitutionally repugnant laws.


You are an absolute fucking moron.

QFT

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby Geetar Man » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:23 pm

BiglawOrBust wrote:
Geetar Man wrote:Speaking of fallacies, you're making a fallacy of composition; just because something might be true of one part of something doesn't make it true about the whole.


Geetar Man wrote: Putting someone in prison for using crack/meth or whatever is a good idea because those types of people are often the people who steal, kill, and what not.


So punishing someone because they merely have a higher tendency to commit a more serious crime is not also a "fallacy of composition"?


No. They're being punished for using/selling/manufacturing drugs. (therefore ruining their lives according to cactuspuppy) Not because they have a higher tendency to commit crimes. The fact that they commit crimes more often than non-users just piggy backs the reason to enforce the drug laws.

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby Geetar Man » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:37 pm

flcath wrote:

... can someone really not open a "how to become a prosecutor" thread on a law school forum without it getting derailed by bizarre political hackery?


It's better this way.

flcath
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby flcath » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:51 pm

Geetar Man wrote:
flcath wrote:

... can someone really not open a "how to become a prosecutor" thread on a law school forum without it getting derailed by bizarre political hackery?


It's better this way.

I'm surprised biglaw threads don't get interrupted more often by Occupy types.

crit_racer
Posts: 756
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby crit_racer » Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:57 pm

public defender (for places that have real PD offices)...harder or easier to get than becoming a prosecutor?

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:01 pm

crit_racer wrote:public defender (for places that have real PD offices)...harder or easier to get than becoming a prosecutor?

ITE, just as difficult.

User avatar
CactusPuppy
Posts: 97
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:56 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby CactusPuppy » Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:19 am

Geetar Man wrote:
CactusPuppy wrote:enforcing drug laws does ruin people's lives. felony possession strips individuals of many civil and political rights + social entitlements.


kalvano wrote:So all prosecutors do all day is ruin people's lives by enforcing drug laws? Got it.


CactusPuppy wrote: Yeah. That's totally what I said. You have really good reading skills.



No, you didn't say that. Speaking of fallacies, you're making a fallacy of composition; just because something might be true of one part of something doesn't make it true about the whole. You're doing this by saying that enforcing the drug laws ruins people's lives, when what I really think you mean is that enforcing pot laws can possibly ruin someones life. Pot does not equal all drug laws, buddy.

If you do in fact think that enforcing all drug laws are ruining people's lives, would you say that enforcing laws for meth, cocaine, heroin, crack, etc... are ruining people's lives? I'd say to some extent, yes, but to some extent no. Putting someone in prison for using crack/meth or whatever is a good idea because those types of people are often the people who steal, kill, and what not. But imprisoning them doesnt ruin their lives anymore than the drug itself does. I think it would be foolish to think that enforcing all drug laws ruins lives.

As someone said above, an infraction for having pot is similar to (or even less than) recieving a speeding ticket in most states.



I'm not talking about weed. I'm talking about all drugs.

I'm not fueling this fire. The poster wasn't looking to read an argument about drugs. No point to argue further as it is not constructive to anything.

As for the "occupy" comments some of you have been making. Note that my belief on this matter comes from a far right individual liberties perspective, not from the left. Calling anyone you disagree with an "occupier" is pretty abhorrent and a pathetic attempt to use heuristics and social constructions to discredit a point you are too lazy to address logically. It's especially offensive when you call a free-enterpriser an occupier. Not cool.



--

OP. Go for it if you want. Just remember rule 3(1.2)(c) from the ABA criminal justice standards: "the duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict"

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby Geetar Man » Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:50 am

I called you out earlier on your shit in this thread. But I have to admit, good post. TCR

User avatar
Mce252
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:43 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby Mce252 » Sat Dec 31, 2011 11:49 am

CactusPuppy wrote:
Geetar Man wrote:
CactusPuppy wrote:enforcing drug laws does ruin people's lives. felony possession strips individuals of many civil and political rights + social entitlements.


kalvano wrote:So all prosecutors do all day is ruin people's lives by enforcing drug laws? Got it.


CactusPuppy wrote: Yeah. That's totally what I said. You have really good reading skills.



No, you didn't say that. Speaking of fallacies, you're making a fallacy of composition; just because something might be true of one part of something doesn't make it true about the whole. You're doing this by saying that enforcing the drug laws ruins people's lives, when what I really think you mean is that enforcing pot laws can possibly ruin someones life. Pot does not equal all drug laws, buddy.

If you do in fact think that enforcing all drug laws are ruining people's lives, would you say that enforcing laws for meth, cocaine, heroin, crack, etc... are ruining people's lives? I'd say to some extent, yes, but to some extent no. Putting someone in prison for using crack/meth or whatever is a good idea because those types of people are often the people who steal, kill, and what not. But imprisoning them doesnt ruin their lives anymore than the drug itself does. I think it would be foolish to think that enforcing all drug laws ruins lives.

As someone said above, an infraction for having pot is similar to (or even less than) recieving a speeding ticket in most states.



I'm not talking about weed. I'm talking about all drugs.

I'm not fueling this fire. The poster wasn't looking to read an argument about drugs. No point to argue further as it is not constructive to anything.

As for the "occupy" comments some of you have been making. Note that my belief on this matter comes from a far right individual liberties perspective, not from the left. Calling anyone you disagree with an "occupier" is pretty abhorrent and a pathetic attempt to use heuristics and social constructions to discredit a point you are too lazy to address logically. It's especially offensive when you call a free-enterpriser an occupier. Not cool.



--

OP. Go for it if you want. Just remember rule 3(1.2)(c) from the ABA criminal justice standards: "the duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict"


The "far right" liberties perspective takes the form of allowing everyone the liberty to do whatever they please as long as it harms no one else. I'm sorry to say but legalizing crack and heroin harms quite a few more people than the user, especially those murdered and robbed in support of a relentless addiction.

I threw in the Occupy comment just because your ridiculous postss are similar to the things I hear on television all day long from an Occupy idiot. I don't need to address your comments in an especially logical way. They're pretty illogical on their own.

User avatar
BiglawOrBust
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby BiglawOrBust » Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:21 pm

Mce252 wrote:The "far right" liberties perspective takes the form of allowing everyone the liberty to do whatever they please as long as it harms no one else. I'm sorry to say but legalizing crack and heroin harms quite a few more people than the user, especially those murdered and robbed in support of a relentless addiction.

I threw in the Occupy comment just because your ridiculous postss are similar to the things I hear on television all day long from an Occupy idiot. I don't need to address your comments in an especially logical way. They're pretty illogical on their own.


Settle down there, Tea Party. There's no evidence to support the contention that robberies and murders would increase if these drugs were legalized. (Especially when quite a few lives -- and billions of dollars -- would be spared by ending the war on drugs.)
Last edited by BiglawOrBust on Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BiglawOrBust
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:11 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby BiglawOrBust » Sat Dec 31, 2011 1:24 pm

Geetar Man wrote:
BiglawOrBust wrote:
Geetar Man wrote:Speaking of fallacies, you're making a fallacy of composition; just because something might be true of one part of something doesn't make it true about the whole.


Geetar Man wrote: Putting someone in prison for using crack/meth or whatever is a good idea because those types of people are often the people who steal, kill, and what not.


So punishing someone because they merely have a higher tendency to commit a more serious crime is not also a "fallacy of composition"?


No. They're being punished for using/selling/manufacturing drugs.


Your reasoning is circular. Obviously they're being punished for drug use, but why is that punishment justified? Because they have a higher tendency to commit certain crimes?

User avatar
Geetar Man
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed May 26, 2010 4:13 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby Geetar Man » Sat Dec 31, 2011 2:29 pm

BiglawOrBust wrote:
Geetar Man wrote:
BiglawOrBust wrote:
Geetar Man wrote:Speaking of fallacies, you're making a fallacy of composition; just because something might be true of one part of something doesn't make it true about the whole.


Geetar Man wrote: Putting someone in prison for using crack/meth or whatever is a good idea because those types of people are often the people who steal, kill, and what not.


So punishing someone because they merely have a higher tendency to commit a more serious crime is not also a "fallacy of composition"?


No. They're being punished for using/selling/manufacturing drugs.


Your reasoning is circular. Obviously they're being punished for drug use, but why is that punishment justified? Because they have a higher tendency to commit certain crimes?


Particularly the government has motivation to prevent drug use because of public health concerns both directly and indirectly. This is with the assumption that the government's main concern is for the well-being of the public. Although, I believe that drug use laws are based on subjective principles. Drug prohibition is still a relatively new thing. People have been using them for hundreds of years. Basically, the punishment can be justified in some ways and unjustified in others.

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any drug laws; people would be able to do whatever drugs they want and whatever they want to their bodies. However, in the world we live in, some people are affected negatively, either directly or indirectly, and that ladies and gentleman is a good reason, in my opinion, assuming society exists as it does today, for why some drug laws are justified.

As for pot, I just don't see the harm. Smoking something, i.e., burning plant matter and inhaling it, is bad for one's body. But the lethality of marijuana is so low (little?) that I think there can be more benefit to gain (economically) from legalization. The only problem I have with that is that we will be feeding the government more money when they begin to tax and regulate it. I know that I sure don't trust the government with money. Shit, we have 115 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities. Why do I want to give the government more money?

Anyway, to get back on topic. I never said the laws are justified because the drug users have a higher tendency to commit crimes. I merely was TRYING to say that it's a GOOD IDEA (not justified) because MOST people, not all, who are involved in drugs bring more evil than good. The fact of the matter is that the people who are doing evil are really fucking it up for the people who would use drugs in their own homes and not cause any trouble, such as most pot smokers.

Idk, man. I'm not a fucking lawyer, ethicist or moralist. I just think that the hard drug (cocaine, crack, heroine, meth, etc...) laws are somewhat legit. As for marijuana laws, that's a whole 'nother ball game. I think drugs that are mostly non-lethal should be decriminalized.

VOTE FOR RON PAUL 2012!!!

User avatar
Mce252
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:43 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby Mce252 » Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:00 pm

BiglawOrBust wrote:
Mce252 wrote:The "far right" liberties perspective takes the form of allowing everyone the liberty to do whatever they please as long as it harms no one else. I'm sorry to say but legalizing crack and heroin harms quite a few more people than the user, especially those murdered and robbed in support of a relentless addiction.

I threw in the Occupy comment just because your ridiculous postss are similar to the things I hear on television all day long from an Occupy idiot. I don't need to address your comments in an especially logical way. They're pretty illogical on their own.


Settle down there, Tea Party. There's no evidence to support the contention that robberies and murders would increase if these drugs were legalized. (Especially when quite a few lives -- and billions of dollars -- would be spared by ending the war on drugs.)



Well murders might not increase either if murder was legalized but that doesn't mean it should be done. I was arguing from the libertarian point of view that anything which does not directly harm others should be an unobstructed freedom of the individual. Therefore, drugs that do not directly harm those other than the users should be legal under that philosophy. (I don't subscribe to this nor am I associated with the Tea Party in any way.)

The policy of complete legalization of all substances would be a complete disaster. As somsone with a history of severe drug abuse (I'm sober now), I can only imagine the effect that "just a taste" of methamphetamine from that Walgreens down the street would have on every 15 year old in the country. You think your insurance is expensive now?

User avatar
89vision
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 5:49 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby 89vision » Mon Jan 02, 2012 4:37 pm

Mce252 wrote:
CactusPuppy wrote:
Geetar Man wrote:
CactusPuppy wrote:enforcing drug laws does ruin people's lives. felony possession strips individuals of many civil and political rights + social entitlements.


kalvano wrote:So all prosecutors do all day is ruin people's lives by enforcing drug laws? Got it.


CactusPuppy wrote: Yeah. That's totally what I said. You have really good reading skills.



No, you didn't say that. Speaking of fallacies, you're making a fallacy of composition; just because something might be true of one part of something doesn't make it true about the whole. You're doing this by saying that enforcing the drug laws ruins people's lives, when what I really think you mean is that enforcing pot laws can possibly ruin someones life. Pot does not equal all drug laws, buddy.

If you do in fact think that enforcing all drug laws are ruining people's lives, would you say that enforcing laws for meth, cocaine, heroin, crack, etc... are ruining people's lives? I'd say to some extent, yes, but to some extent no. Putting someone in prison for using crack/meth or whatever is a good idea because those types of people are often the people who steal, kill, and what not. But imprisoning them doesnt ruin their lives anymore than the drug itself does. I think it would be foolish to think that enforcing all drug laws ruins lives.

As someone said above, an infraction for having pot is similar to (or even less than) recieving a speeding ticket in most states.



I'm not talking about weed. I'm talking about all drugs.

I'm not fueling this fire. The poster wasn't looking to read an argument about drugs. No point to argue further as it is not constructive to anything.

As for the "occupy" comments some of you have been making. Note that my belief on this matter comes from a far right individual liberties perspective, not from the left. Calling anyone you disagree with an "occupier" is pretty abhorrent and a pathetic attempt to use heuristics and social constructions to discredit a point you are too lazy to address logically. It's especially offensive when you call a free-enterpriser an occupier. Not cool.



--

OP. Go for it if you want. Just remember rule 3(1.2)(c) from the ABA criminal justice standards: "the duty of a prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict"


The "far right" liberties perspective takes the form of allowing everyone the liberty to do whatever they please as long as it harms no one else. I'm sorry to say but legalizing crack and heroin harms quite a few more people than the user, especially those murdered and robbed in support of a relentless addiction.

I threw in the Occupy comment just because your ridiculous postss are similar to the things I hear on television all day long from an Occupy idiot. I don't need to address your comments in an especially logical way. They're pretty illogical on their own.



I'm a bit curious as to your views on decriminalization and legalization, your statement was brief and I don't want to make any incorrect assumptions.

When OH and CA decriminalized marijuana, use did not increase in a statistically significant manner, and any slight increase was not tied to decriminalization (in the early/mid 1970s, based on a paper I read). When looking at medical marijuana, legalizing it makes is incredibly more affordable. When a nearby state legalized medicinal marijuana, the quality of marijuana in the local market in my state increased drastically (based on THC content), while the price remained the same.

Now, this is one example with one of the least addictive legal or illegal substance in the US.

Based on my experiences, the main reason why drug users are more likely to commit crimes is because they need money, not because they are violent people. Maybe this is wrong, but this is what I have seen, I am sure there are other experiences though.

If you want a more comprehensive view of drug policy and how it impacts use, look at Mexico and Portugal. For example, Portugal decriminalized all drugs, and has the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in the EU. Drug use declined among young people across the board when decriminalization occurred, s. I think it is interesting, but considering the cultural differences between the US and Portugal and Mexico, maybe success would not be replicated. But based on initial case studies, the idea that use would increase following decriminalization is not accurate. I would imagine cheaper prices and less users would not create any more problems than prohibition currently creates. Since no country has legalized any drug other than alcohol or nicotine, it is hard to say exactly what legalization of all substances in 2012 would entail, but decriminalization has had many positive, and sometimes unexpected, results.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 46,00.html

arodd53
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby arodd53 » Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:34 pm

.
Last edited by arodd53 on Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrPapagiorgio
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am

Re: I want to be a prosecutor

Postby MrPapagiorgio » Tue Jan 03, 2012 2:46 am

arodd53 wrote:
flcath wrote:I'm surprised biglaw threads don't get interrupted more often by Occupy types.


+1. How does that not happen to biglaw threads more often?

There is a large contingent of TLSers who want biglaw and, if you read the OWS thread, you will see that many on TLS, even some of the left-leaning ones, do not identify with the occupy movement.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests