Okay, I guess I should have said your experiences have left you leaning toward the cause of the defense.
(mulls) I don't know. Leaning is tricky. Having worked a while in the system I know that most people charged with a crime are guilty. I also know the attitude that can breed on both sides of the aisle and the bench, which then leads me to be equally zealous as the standard of law in defending someone, because even though the law begins with a presumption of innocence I understand everyone involved thinks they know better than that, if you follow.
So, for the sake of the few you have to really try the assumption of the many.
Apologies. Had I known I would have been a bit more sussinct in my observation.
No harm done and I wasn't offended really, only distinguishing one impression for another.
I can assure you that my impressions are anything but anecdotal ...
When did I say anything about your impressions?
but I will admit, when you spend enough money in civil litigation only to find the only penalty provisions incurred are monetary and fairly easily avoided it leaves one with a bit of a jaundiced eye as it concerns that aspect of litigation.
See, that's anecdotal and what I meant. Without knowing the jurisdiction and particulars I'd say that civil litigation can be frustrating for any number of reasons and that victories can frequently be reduced to the moral variety...but it ain't necessarily so. Ask O. J. and anyone actively pursued by a diligent claimant.
Yes, well, that may be true ... when you've suffered the deprivations of a lack of prosecution long enough you naturally tend to pine for the ideal ... if you are the victim, that is.
First thing I'd do with a client in a claim is estimate the cost and the likely outcome, potential downfalls and frustrations and then I'd say, "Now knowing the potential here the only real question is, what do you want and what are you willing to go through to get it?"
