Charlotte Proudman is a lawyer. Yet she doesn’t seem to understand what a motive is.
a31e1118-ace6-4794-9006-4457a63bbdd0.jpeg (211.72 KiB) Viewed 1417 times
Re: Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime
Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2024 7:04 pm
by Sciolus
Yeah, that's annoying and stupid. It's another example of people who think that understanding why people commit crimes mean that you are approving them. See also John Major's ‘we should condemn a little more and understand a little less’.
The English language doesn't help, because words like "justification" have two distinct meanings, in a way that is both subtle and crucial: it can mean "a reason why an action is legitimate" or "an attempt to argue that an action is legitimate".
Re: Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime
Yeah, that's annoying and stupid. It's another example of people who think that understanding why people commit crimes mean that you are approving them. See also John Major's ‘we should condemn a little more and understand a little less’.
And the motives suggested here would, I think, be considered aggravating factors if the attacker were caught and sentenced. So understanding them would result in him being condemned more, rather than less, harshly.
Re: Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2024 7:12 am
by Woodchopper
Given that it’s published on Twitter it might be more likely to be deliberate click bait rather than a sign that a lawyer doesn’t understand basic legal concepts.
Re: Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime
Given that it’s published on Twitter it might be more likely to be deliberate click bait rather than a sign that a lawyer doesn’t understand basic legal concepts.
Ahem. Please do not entertain the notion that a lawyer who doesn't understand basic legal concepts is beyond the realm of possibilities in this modern era.
Cough, cough {trump!) Cough
Re: Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime
Posted: Sat Feb 24, 2024 10:25 am
by Martin Y
Trump is an outlier though; he can't hire a lawyer bright enough to realise they won't get paid.
Re: Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime
I wondered why anybody would work for him as he habitually does not pay his bills.
His latest one has been paid $3m in advance
It won't be enough to get him off, and the bill will be 6M, which won't pay
[/Prediction]
That's Chris Kise who secured the advance in September 2022. I wonder if he has exhausted that by now, given the large quantity of legal work needed in that time. If he got that advance, he may be able to ask for further advances on exhaustion.
It's not uncommon to pay advances to lawyers, as security for fees, fines, etc. Indeed, it is a well-known form of money laundering to pay an excessively large advance to a lawyer, and then get most of it refunded. At least in this country, lawyers are supposed to keep a segregated client funds account. There's the occasional case of lawyers getting caught pilfering the client funds.
Re: Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime
Posted: Fri Mar 01, 2024 2:04 pm
by cvb
Sorry. Wrong thread.
Re: Lawyer thinks motives are justifications of crime
Posted: Wed Mar 06, 2024 1:06 pm
by monkey
Charlotte Proudman has just started a campaign (with others, I assume) to change rape law to affirmative consent, where you have to get a "yes" before having sex.
The campaign for it wasn't thought out very well.
I've put the picture behind spoilers, it's safe for work, but it's big and possibly triggering. It's of a woman's face with "I'm asking for it" in big pink letters written over it. It's also in the twitter link below.