IS CRIME A RECOGNISED OCCUPATION.

**adrianh** · 21-Nov-11, 09:12 AM

A lawyers job and mandate is not to judge whether you are guilty or not but to defend you "without prejudice" within the framework of the law. I know what you are thinking already and I agree but morality unfortunately has little to do with it.

Perfectly put in a nutshell - and this explains why the best paying customers get the best lawyers and then get off. I suppose a lawyer can be seen as similar to being a surgeon, in that the surgeon repairs whatever damage may have been inflicted without judging the patient. If the surgeon were to judge the patient he or she would probably be unable to remove the bullet lodged in the rapist's spine!

**City Adults SA** · 21-Nov-11, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by mother

I think it would be a splendid idea to bring in some legislation to tax convicted criminals for their crimes (specifically thieves/robbers/etc). After all, the crime did provide the criminal with an income/asset (something that added value to his estate), which should now be declared, and therefore taxed. Let's say he took a bicycle, then he gained an asset to the value of (more or less) R500, and if it took him approx 5 minutes to steal it, that would translate to an income of R48,000 per day - wow! What's the tax bracket for that kind of income?

I really do like the way you think and I agree with you. Afterall SARS is not the custodian of our morals and they are in no way related to the judiciary or the safety and security cluster. Their mandate is to specifically to tax you on your earnings and gains without giving a crap where it comes from. Oh yeah, I like it.

**City Adults SA** · 22-Nov-11, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by adrianh

Perfectly put in a nutshell - and this explains why the best paying customers get the best lawyers and then get off. I suppose a lawyer can be seen as similar to being a surgeon, in that the surgeon repairs whatever damage may have been inflicted without judging the patient. If the surgeon were to judge the patient he or she would probably be unable to remove the bullet lodged in the rapist's spine!

Wow. Love the analogy. Spot on!

**adrianh** · 22-Nov-11, 11:08 AM

Think about this: If the criminal buys a stolen TV and resells it for a profit he will have to pay capital gains tax. Then of course he would want to deduct the cost of his knife from his tax because he uses his knife to derive his income.

**tec0** · 24-Nov-11, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by adrianh

Think about this: If the criminal buys a stolen TV and resells it for a profit he will have to pay capital gains tax. Then of course he would want to deduct the cost of his knife from his tax because he uses his knife to derive his income.

In any event do you think the criminal would like to make his TV licence TAX deductible? After all it is in his best interest to have a TV licence as he can face a serious phone call and be legally threaten with a blacklisting…

Those phone calls from SABC can be really intimidating! Basically it is blackmail so maybe the criminal will not go legit on the TV license… Thus the question why would they register for SARS?
Maybe if they do they can get off with community service rather than spending time in prison?

**twinscythe12332** · 28-Nov-11, 01:06 PM

job title: ANCYL president
previous experience:...
=P

**Blurock** · 28-Nov-11, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by adrianh

Perfectly put in a nutshell - and this explains why the best paying customers get the best lawyers and then get off. I suppose a lawyer can be seen as similar to being a surgeon, in that the surgeon repairs whatever damage may have been inflicted without judging the patient. If the surgeon were to judge the patient he or she would probably be unable to remove the bullet lodged in the rapist's spine!

This is a very good explanation. Although the surgeon has taken an oath to save lives - that includes everyone, even criminals.

I've always had a problem understanding the following when all the evidence (including admission to the crime) and proof shows that the person is guilty of a crime or even murder ; Is it the lawyers' task to ensure that his client gets a fair trial or is it his job to get his client acquitted no matter what? Is it OK for a lawyer to twist facts or discredit evidence to get a murderer acquitted? What if he murders again? Who is then to blame?

**adrianh** · 28-Nov-11, 06:01 PM

You know, at the end of the day it all comes down to The Golden Rule:

Whoever has the gold makes the rules

I honestly do not think there is much more to life than that simple fact, not morality, law or any of that stuff, just money.

**Dave A** · 29-Nov-11, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Blurock

I've always had a problem understanding the following when all the evidence (including admission to the crime) and proof shows that the person is guilty of a crime or even murder ; Is it the lawyers' task to ensure that his client gets a fair trial or is it his job to get his client acquitted no matter what? Is it OK for a lawyer to twist facts or discredit evidence to get a murderer acquitted? What if he murders again? Who is then to blame?

For a while I was dealing with an advocate who specialised in defending the worst of cases - at a hefty fee. His view was it's not his fault if the police or the state mess up making their case. His job was to make sure they did their job properly.

**ghostwriter** · 29-Nov-11, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dave A

For a while I was dealing with an advocate who specialised in defending the worst of cases - at a hefty fee. His view was it's not his fault if the police or the state mess up making their case. His job was to make sure they did their job properly.

revised of post.

I got board before I got to the ending of this post. In elk geval

Die ding is they use contracts to rape us, and entrap us and they can be smug and holly about it. It is what it is criminals use contracts the stupid ones try and steal a car with tracker in it.

Basically there lawyers became an accessory