Two people I wouldn't mind being: Elizabeth the death penalty defense attorney and Jim, the former FBI agent, now federal prosecutor. So: what struck you about them? Just give your general reaction and/or one thing about each of them that stayed with you, and why.
I thought it was interesting how they both seemed to be in mutual agreement, and that both of them seemed very sympathetic towards the criminals. Something that stayed with me about Jim was that he seemed so sympathetic and nice, even though he is a prosecutor. Prosecutor brings to mind an image of some guy standing up and pointing his finger at someone and prosecuting. It stayed with me that Elizabeth was so calm about everything, yet she likes the criminals she works with. She can really like a person and want to fight for their life, literally, but she still can maintain to not get involved emotionally.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I realized was that I would want both Elizabeth and Jim in my corner if I got in a jam. I think it's pretty incredible that neither one of them had lost a case. They both seemed like nice, funny, and smart people. When I picture the men and women in their line of work I picture someone less personable and closed off. I see a straight laced guy saying things like, "The law is the law" and "Well the guys had it coming." I also liked their answer to my question. I was happy to hear that TV shows aren't that far off when they depict their jobs. The shows are just more fast pace and leave out the boring paper work.
ReplyDeleteI have always thought of lawyers as intense and people that aren't family people. Elizabeth and Jim proved both of those wrong they weren't as intense as I thought lawyers were. They also had families and were parents which i never saw lawyers as because of what I have seen portrayed on T.V. shows and movies. I also thought it was interesting how much they did care for the people they were defending and prosecuting and how they felt bad for them.
ReplyDeleteWhat struck me about Elizabeth and Jim was that they both seemed to know so clearly what right and wrong was for them. They didn't seem to doubt their own judgement. It was also interesting to me how much faith they had in the legal system, and how much they thought of it as a good, fair system. It was also interesting to me Elizabeth and Jim portrayed the prosecution and defense as more on the same side, rather than in opposition. They made it seem like they really were working together to find the best solution, rather than fighting, which is usually how TV portrays it.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was really interesting listening to their stories and personal experiences. One thing that stayed with me was Jim’s story about when he felt he didn’t do the moral thing. His immediate reaction was to go and make the situation right and to fix his fault in the situation. This makes me believe he is an honest man. I felt like Elizabeth had the feeling she had to defend her job and what she did. It seemed like she kept repeating that the people she worked with weren’t bad people. It’s possible she just wanted to get the message across, but I took it as she was trying to defend her job. Also neither of them had ever lost a case. Elizabeth said she had never lost a case in which one of her clients got death penalty she then said she hoped she would never have to see that. That really struck me because the way she said it she got very emotional. Also they both said that sometimes when they win the outcome that they wanted didn’t come. That seemed important that often they might win by the laws standards, but not by the standards they set-up for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that the two lawyers were a lot different then what i expected them to be. Like David said, I thought they would be really intense people but that is because I only know one lawyer who happens to be my friend's mom. I also thought it was interesting that they really can't have any personal connection to the cases they are dealing with. Obviously lawyers are different than cops but I thought they would have the same feelings towards the people they are dealing with. For example how detective garner said she had no sympathy for the criminals because they know what they did so they don't deserve sympathy. But it was kind of nice that they had sympathy for the people they are defending.
ReplyDeleteI was very surprised by how personable and friendly both Elizabeth and Jim were. I expected both of them to be extremely intense, super serious and just overall unfriendly, but they proved me wrong. Compared to Detective Garner, I thought it was very interesting how both of them seemed to have a small amount of sympathy for the criminals. I believe that the reason for this is that they get to know the criminals better than the cops do, because they have the ability to dig deeper and learn more about the lives of the criminals they are dealing with.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few quotes that really stuck with me from Jim and Elizabeth today. Jim said, "Like anything in life... nothing is certain." I thought that was a really good quote, and it struck me as very honest. In context he was talking about the doubt that there always is on both sides, but I think that quote can hold true to each of their jobs. Elizabeth said, "I see the human being in them" (them being her clients). I thought that was very striking. When Detectives Garner and Harris were talking about the DA's, I got the impression that they were liars, trying to say that their client did not commit the crime. I didn't get that impression today though. Elizabeth was saying that she knows her clients are guilty, she is just negotiating a sentence. I think what she does is very important, especially how she phrased it about seeing the human being in them. Like she said, it's a difficult job that not a lot of people can do, and I think it's admirable and incredible that she can do it so well without letting it effect her personal life.
ReplyDeleteI really liked talking to both of them and I feel both of them had a lot of good things to say. They both seemed to really like their jobs. I enjoyed hearing about some of the cases they had tried and I thought it was really amazing that neither of them had ever lost a case. One story that was really interesting to me from jim was about how he had to do the moral thing no matter if it did anything to the case. From the movies and shows we have seen prosecutors will do anything to win a case, and hearing about how Jim made the jury come back so he could hand them a transcript that would probably not have changed the verdict made me feel like not all prosecutors are dishonest.
ReplyDeleteone quote that stuck with me from Elizabeth was "I argue for a sentence and try to save their lives." I don't know how she has that burden on her shoulders. I thought it was interesting how while she was defending the people, she didn't make friends with them but she got a soft spot for them, and I didn't expect that from a DA. I really enjoyed the talk and it really interested me.
I enjoyed meeting both Jim and Elizabeth. They were both really nice and pleasant people. I really thought it was interesting that they both agreed on so much, like their views on sympathy towards the clients. I would think Jim at least would not be so empathetic. He was not like the stereotypical type lawyer figure that would want nothing more than to convict the person. I found it interesting that their opinions on the empathy/sympathy matter were so different that Detective Garner's. It was also interesting to hear about Elizabeth never wanting to turn down a case. I found their relaxation in our classroom a bit strange, but really nice.
ReplyDeleteListening to both Jim and Elizabeth explain what their job was like, made me really respect them both. I admired Elizabeth greatly for what she is doing, trying to not match death with death. To me, that is important. What I found really interesting was, even though they saw incidents from different perspectives, they both wanted the same things. They kept taking about the checks and balances of the legal system. Rather than being on opposing sides (which I thought they would be, from what the media displays), they were collaborating to try and keep a sense of stability. They were each there to balance the other one out, to get the best possible outcome for everyone. Or as Jim said, "At the end of the day we're looking for fairness". The other thing I thought was interesting was that they kept repeating how much they believed in the system. I liked it when Jim said, "I barely ever get the sentence I think justice deserves... But at the end of the day, I just have to believe in the system." I respect how religiously they believe in the system, and how they both said that's what gets them through their trials. But, I'm not sure if I could do that. I think there are ways that we could improve the law, in which it could benefit everyone more. The legal system won't ever be perfect. That's evident from what Elizabeth said about people always being biased (whether biased on race, religion, gender, or personal connections to the case). But, I do think it could be better for everybody, closer to perfect.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed both Jim and Elizabeth. One thing that struck me most about Elizabeth's profession is her ability to not personalize the cases that she deals with, especially since she has children. It seems as if she is very dedicated to her job and I admire her desire to have equality in the justice system. She seems like a women who always promotes justice for everyone, regardless of their race or sex. One statistic that struck me was the differing convictions for different races. Elizabeth said that an african american person that murders a white person is four times more likely to get the death penalty than if it were a white person who murdered someone. I knew that there was racial discrimination within the criminal justice system, but I had no idea that the statistics were that ridiculous. While listening to Jim, I also noticed the effort that he makes to ensure fairness. Both Elizabeth and Jim seemed to be very dedicated to their job and determined to ensure equality for everyone.
ReplyDeleteIt was very interesting to me how well they got along even though they were on totally different sides. In movies the defense and the prosecution are usually made out to be enemies not team mates. It was nice to see that in real life they liked to work together to make both of there jobs easier. I really enjoyed how although they had different ideas they gave us more fact than arguing how they feel. It was cool to see that Elizabeth knew most of her clients were guilty and that her job was not to get them off but to make sure they didnt get to harsh of a sentence.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by many things. First of, they both seemed to have a respect for the other perso even thought they essentially enemies on two different sides. They both admired the other persons job, even though their job was to argue against the other person. The other thing I found interesting is how guilty they felt. Going in i thought that Elizabeth would feel kinda of bad for defending killers, but she seemed extremely proud and saw nothing wrong with it. While on the other hand Him seemed to feel some guilt, even though he was fighting to bring justice to bad people. He said that he did not like hearing the judges decision for punishment, that it made him feel bad. This is not to say he though hi job was immoral, but he did more so then Elizabeth. I just found that surprising.
ReplyDeleteIn many of the movies and TV shows that we’ve watched in class or that I’ve seen elsewhere, the main character (whether a lawyer, police officer, special agent, etc.) always tries to be the hero, doing it all. Jim and Elizabeth have great faith that as long as they play their role within the justice system well, the end result will be as fair as possible. I was very impressed (and it seems to be the mark of a good or effective attorney) that they never overstep their boundaries, both legally and morally. They don’t push for the worst possible conviction or a complete acquittal. They push for what is fair and best for the defendant. They have both observed people “crossing the line” within their professions, but they’ve never even thought of themselves doing the same thing. Their faith in the system keeps them happily in place. Jim also made a comment about how the defense attorneys exist to check the power of the prosecutors, and vice versa. Both Jim and Elizabeth showed that when attorneys do it the “right” way, the checks and balances work perfectly and the justice system comes through, just as they believe it will.
ReplyDeleteLike others, I was also surprised by how little Jim and Elizabeth disagreed. I got the impression that they really are working for the same things and they actually don't work in competition nearly as much as expected. Elizabeth's idea of really working to make sure everything in the trial was fair, and not necessarily a personal win also kind of struck me. In general, my impressions have been pretty surprising. I would have expected lawyers to be in constant contrast and total conflicting ideas, but they were very amicable and basically in agreement.
ReplyDeleteI found Jim and Elizabeth very interesting. I never really had an opinion on the death penalty before, but I found Elizabeth's reasons against it to be reasonable. I understand that there is still racial discrimination and injustice and therefore it makes senses that there can never be a fair sentence like Elizabeth was saying. I also was a little surprised that she doesn't personalize the crimes which I believe is a good thing so she can do a fair job.
ReplyDeleteI found that Jim's story about doing what was right by turning in the transcript really stuck with me. This is because we have been talking a lot about what is right and wrong. Jim said that the transcript would not have made a difference in the decision the jury was going to make but if he hadn't corrected himself he could have been in trouble and the case would have to be reopened later. I feel like in a lot of the tv shows we have watched the attorney probably wouldn't have done what Jim did because they don't like to follow the law which makes the tv shows interesting. Another thing that really stuck with me was how much that talked about having faith and trust in the system. They both, especially Jim, talked about how it was like a checks and balance system. In the tv shows it doesn't seem like they attorneys have faith in the system because if they did they wouldn't break cross the line as much.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting to hear their background and their stories. Something that stuck with me from Elizabeth is that she said she "fought for the people with no voice". I thought that was interesting because you always overlook the defendant, you automatically think he/she is guilty and has no right to have an attorney. Elizabeth reminded me that as an outsider you cant assume things and also everyone needs to be defended. The defense attorney makes sure that the law is enforced fairly and not be biased. My outlook on defense attorney's has changed greatly due to what Elizabeth said today.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was surprising that they seemed to agree about a lot of things. Their jobs are opposites of each other, but they definitely weren't. I was surprised to hear that most of Elizabeth's cases don't go to trial. I think I would assume that because cop shows always show the person going to trial, and never taking a deal before then. I also remember Elizabeth's story about the man who wouldn't take the 20 year deal. It looked like she thought it was sad that he didn't realize he'd be getting life if he didn't take that deal. I remember that story because, to me, it sounded like she really wants to help the people she's representing.
ReplyDelete-Nick
One thing that really stayed with me from our conversations with the attorneys was that I never knew that defense attorneys are trying to work with the prosecution and the prosecutors are trying work the defense to make sure the trial goes quickly and fairly. Whenever I have seen cop shows, for example SVU, it always appears to me that defense attorneys and prosecutors are against one another, sometimes even hate one another. I found this really interesting when they were talking that they both seemed to agree that they wanted to avoid the courtroom and make all cases go quickly. Another thing that really stuck with me was just the job Elizabeth had and how much she enjoyed it. When she gave her reasons for doing it, being the voice for people who do not have one and trying to make sure the defendant does not get ripped off, I started to understand more of where she was coming from. Those reasons just seemed to important to me and made me really understand where she was coming from and understand why people do that. Overall once again I do not believe I could ever do what these two attorneys do, but I found their stories very interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe lawyers really interested me because i had never really understood the legal aspect of what we were learning about. It was nice to get a personal description of what it was like and the emotions that were carried with it. I had a predetermined view of what the defense attorney was because of what Nicole had said a few days earlier, and expected her to be a "liar". Elizabeth did not meet up to my expectations, and this was a good thing. I found her warm at heart and very kind. She also explained why she did what she did and I was able to understand where she was coming form.
ReplyDelete