I just made that up.
"I didn't like law school. Lots of grade grubbers. Lots of talk about competition."
"The day you pass the bar, you can practice."
"There are thousands of attorneys who are trial lawyers...But only 5% of all lawyers set foot in court."
"A lot of criminal defense attorneys will not go to trial. They will plead rather than go to trial. Lots of them are terrified to go to trial."
"In Dekalb there is a a judge who if you had two suitcases of cocaine would not convict for long. But domestic violence? 250 years."
"When I started law I thought there were 80% good cops and 10% bad. Once I got into the law, I reversed that: 20% good, 80% bad."
"A bad cop is not a dirty cop. It's a low paying job, any day can be your last. The low pay doesn't attract the best of candidates."
"Nobody could be that stupid [to accidently shoot his girlfriend]. Yes, he was that stupid."
Dan DeWoskin, class of '95. What was your reaction to him? What about what he said stayed with you and why? What did he say that most surprised or shocked you? How did he affect the way you thought about what we've been talking about in class or what we've been watching? You all took plenty of notes (or should have) during their talks. Go ahead and use them.
Give some depth to your responses here, okay? Short cursory answers won't get full credit. See you all tomorrow.
The two most interesting things about his talk, in my opinion, were his experience with law enforcement and the way lawyers are represented in the media (always in court or working on cases). At least in my experience, I don’t often see people that have experience in both sides of the criminal justice system. Art first when i heard that he was a volunteer deputy, I immediately thought about how Dwight, in The Office, is a volunteer sheriff on weekends, but after a while i realized it was kind of ironic. He goes out to excecute warrants and arrest people to then turn around and fight for their innocence. It almost seems like a conflict of interest in one direction or another. The other thing i found interesting was that most of the lawyers you see in ads aren’t trial lawyers, even though they portray themselves that way. Take for example, John Foy “The Strong Arm”. The name makes it sound like he’s fighting, specifically in court, but in reality he’s just a settlement lawyer. The fact that 95% of lawyers will never set foot in a court room to represent someone is insane. When i was younger i thought that a lawyer was just someone that made arguments during a trial, and it still seems like that is the type that gets all of the media attention. It seems like almost all of the lawyers I know practice in courts, but maybe that's just a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteI thought the talk was pretty good. He shared a lot of good information about the judicial system, like how the judges determine the amount of time a suspect will get based on their case. Before his talk, I thought this was unconstitutional because I felt everyone should be treated the same way. Now, I realized that if it was a set rule, it wouldn’t work properly because each case is different in some way and the jail time can also depend on the circumstances of the people in the case. DeWoskin talked about the job of a trial lawyer. I was surprised to hear that only 5% of lawyers ever enter the courtroom in their careers. When I think lawyer, I automatically associate it with courtroom and to hear that it is not the case was very strange. He also talked about the courtroom and the process from jail to a hearing. From the videos, TV shows, and movies I’ve watched about law, I figured everything happened pretty quickly, because they usually have on the same clothes as the previous day. Even though the time of a trial can vary, it usually takes longer than a couple days, and sometimes even months.
ReplyDeleteI thought Dan was impressively blunt and honest especially for a lawyer. When Dan discussed the statutory rape case it really stuck with me. By my definition of justice justice was not served in that incident. I found it very frustrating that the jury could not be informed of the false identity and circumstances that they met. While I’m sure there are many charges of statuatory rape in which the “rapist” was unaware of the age or misinformed but this case in particular was extremely frustrating. Going to that bar with no bad intentions severely harmed that mans life. I understood why politicians do not want to make a change in this law but someone needs to man up and find a better law to replace it. I was somewhat surprised by the amount off odd cases he works with such as the man supposedly accidentally shooting his wife. While I am suprised it makes since that someone is his field would encounter these types of cases. I see Dan as a very important and desperately needed check on police power. It is interesting that he spent some time working under a police department and I think it was a wonderful thing for him to do. I feel more lawyers should see both sides of the criminal justice system. I think Dan does some very honorable work. He decided to use his law to degree to save as many lives as he can rather than making as much money as he can under a firm. From what I can tell he chooses cases that are important to him while in firms you would be assigned cases. I knew there were not very many trial attorneys but I was surprised at how low the number actually was. I am glad Dan became a courtroom attorney because he has the charisma and morals for the job.
ReplyDeleteI found the talk entertaining. I think hearing first hand from a lawyer about their experiences is crucial in making my own opinions about our countries system. He was clearly very knowledgeable which made him easy to understand and to trust. I appreciated his honesty when speaking about the personal aspects of lawyers such as how many of them are too scared or just too lazy to take a case to trial. I also respected him a lot when he spoke about his own character as a lawyer. I liked how he would rarely to beg or as he said “use the c'mon”which I know I would look for. He seemed very typically lawyer to me. He was blunt, honest and made comments that were intelligent yet put in a way for the audience to understand using evidence and examples. For example when he spoke about how different judges have different ways of dealing with crimes he gave examples of two judges who would both rule very differently on the same case when it concerned either drugs or women beating. This really stuck with me because it showed how human flaws get in the way of a perfect judicial system. No case can have a completely unbiased result because they people judging them have their own biases. I liked how he recognized that and shared how lawyers combat those biases which made me trust them a bit more. It shocked me when he sai that only around 5% of lawyers take their cases to trial. They will try to scare people into taking a plea just because they are lazy. This made me so angry because it is their job to defend and get the best possible result for their client not what is most convenient for them. He mainly solidified my thoughts on what we had been talking. He shared how there are good and bad cops and good and bad lawyers and that is the way it goes. He shared that there are parts of laws and the system that he would like to change beause it’s not perfect but it’s still pretty good. It scared me a little when he gave his personal ratio of 80:20 good cops and bad because it was accurate. It’s scary to think the propels supposed to be protecting everyone are not doing a good job.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed our discussion with Lawyer Dan. He was honest and straightforward (almost matching the level of Detective Shannon,) which I really appreciate. I had never thought about having to recuse a judge if they happened to know the accused, which I find super ironic. Also, I REALLY like his categorization of cops based on ability because I had never thought to differentiate between “bad” and “dirty” cops. There is by far a difference between laziness and immoral ignorance that I appreciate him addressing. Also, I think Kalkidan asked a great question when she asked him to define justice. He seemed to find the sweet spot for every definition we had proposed in class. He defined justice more so by ruling out possible definitions than directly defining it, which I think speaks a lot to what he does for a living and his comments regarding jury selection. DeWoskin seems to not just think about his job but to ponder it in a way that I think is incredibly important in a position of such high influence over others’ lives. I can see the “Paideia style” in the way he thinks about things and willingly admits that he does not have a definite answer for everything (like the definition of “justice.”) Also, now I really want to try out a polygraph test.
ReplyDeleteDan DeWoskin seemed to have some interesting perspectives on the law and the legal system. I appreciated how extensive his knowledge was. He also provided some new insights into the law. A court case really can just come down to who the judge is or where the crime was allegedly committed. I think that’s something most people could guess, but it would be interesting as a lawyer to navigate the system and the people who make it up. It appeared as though much of his job was just analyzing people’s biases and working with them. I loved hearing about the details of the law. I had no idea that juries in Georgia did not decide sentencing. I also didn’t know that traffic tickets were considered misdemeanors in Georgia. That was surprising. Additionally, it nows seems to me that a lawyer is positioned at the intersection of many other jobs regarding the law. DeWoskin has to deal with cops, judges, criminals, victims, witnesses, and so many others. Looking at all the jobs within the legal system, I think being a lawyer would give you the most complete picture of the system itself. What has really stayed with me about his talk was the story about the man who accidentally shot his girlfriend in the head. It would be so difficult to explain to a jury how this was an accident. It just reminds me of how stressful a job like his would be. From now on, I want to watch the movies and TV shows in class with a lawyer’s perspective in mind in addition to a cop’s.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Dan was only a mediocre speaker. The way in which he responded to questions didn’t seem as if it was with the intention to answer, but rather to prove wrong. For example, when Keith asked his question, it seemed as if Dan was going to answer with hostility until he mentioned his dad, in which case Dan perked up and agreed with him. One thing he said that did stick with me, however, was his comment on the double standards presented in the case with the wife who shot her husband. Double between sexes is a topic that is little mentioned at Paideia, so it was a shock to hear him mention it. I noticed that some of my classmates were visibly taken aback about his comments as well. The other thing that shocked me was when he said that he owned guns. I was taken aback by this because I never really envisioned a Paideia graduate owning guns. I also noticed that he offered a difference in opinion from detective Stolarski, who claims that not all cops are bad. Dan, in contrast, claimed that most cops whom he saw on the job were in fact “bad cops”, bad meaning irresponsible, lazy, etc. While Dan did offer some different, unique, and thought provoking points, I would disapprove of his speaking because he didn’t seem to answer questions in a consistently fair manner.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Mr. DeWoskin was very thoughtful and knowledgeable when it came to the legal system in the United States. As a constant participant in the justice system it is vital that Mr. DeWoskin recognizes and finds flaws in it, and it seemed as if this is a topic always on his mind. For instance, he pointed out the problems in many rape and sexual assault laws and with Miranda Law. Something that I will always remember from Mr. DeWoskin’s talk is when he stated that around 20% cops are good, while 80% are bad. Additionally, he pointed out that the 80% of cops who are bad are not necessarily violent or aggressive, but lazy and negligent. I had never contemplated this before; however, it made a lot of sense to me. The majority of police officers are getting paid very little to put their life on the line, so, not surprisingly, many of them are lazy. Another story that will stick with me forever is the case involving a man shot by his wife who had an affair. The fact that the woman had no restrictions on seeing her children seemed outrageous; in addition, Mr. DeWoskin’s reaction intrigued me. Mr. DeWoskin thought that this case was not only outrageous, but incredibly sexist too. I agree with him to an extent, although I cannot say that with certainty because I have not researched the case. Finally, something often mentioned in class is the amount of choice left to a police officer; however, I never contemplated the freedom left to a judge and the effect it could have on a defendant.
ReplyDeleteI was really impressed by Lawyer Dan! He seemed to be very competent, and definetly knew a myriad amount of things surrounding the law. It was interesting to see how Paideia affected his thought process well into law school and even career life. He seems to be brutally honest about lawyers, not holding back on the problems surrounding the career choice. Along with his confidence in his ability, it made me feel safe about being his client if that situation ever happened. What stayed with me the most was that only about 5% of lawyers have actually set a foot into a courtroom. Instead, most attorneys attempt to make deals before a trial can happen, due to fear, laziness, etc. He goes on to say that the good to bad Lawyer ratio is 20:80. I was very surprised by how most lawyers weren’t actually good at defending clients, but it explains why competent attorneys make so much money. I was shocked by one instance Lawyer Dan gave when asked about what he would fix in the law system. He talks about how if a man at a bar had sex with a woman who had Id that seemingly showed she was above 21, and it was later revealed she was underage, the only possible defense that could be made would be to try and lie that they did not have sex. I’m assuming this has happened, so this just seems so hard of a situation to be in. I think he’s made me look at a larger perspective. Lawyer Dan thoroughly explained how most trials in populated areas can take a long time to process. This means there is much more in a case than getting arrested and going to court. This helped me understand why people in the Dekalb County Jail could be there so long. I didn’t get the movie reference about how realistic it was, but now I really want to watch it.
ReplyDeleteDan shared some great information with us today. I really felt like he was being genuinely honest when answering our questions. One thing that really stood out to me was the fact that he said that he was more inspired by bad attorneys than good attorneys. This was especially interesting because that is certainly not what you would expect to hear from a lawyer. However, I could really understand where he was coming from with that one. He talked about just how bad some lawyers can be, sometimes even forgetting their client's name during a trial. I can certainly see why witnessing something like that would inspire someone to become the best lawyer they can be. Seeing someone who is so lazy and careless with the same job that you regard so highly could feel almost offensive to what you are trying to accomplish or prove yourself. Another thing that stuck with me was when he talked about how different judges handle different crimes in different manners. Dan said that if a judge is super against a certain crime, then they are probably going to hand out a harsher sentence. Overall, I think our time with Dan was definitely worth it. We'd already heard about law enforcement from the side of a police officer, so I find it perfect that now we can hear about the same topic, but from the perspective of someone with a completely different job.
ReplyDeleteI liked listening to dan talk with us today. I found it very interesting and I like how he didnt sugar coat anything and was very genuine with us. One thing that stuck with me was that he viewed more attorneys as bad than good. I was surpised by that because my dad has a complete opposite view as dan on that aspect. But at the same time, I realize there are good and bad people in every job like he said. Something else that stood out to me was that different judges handle different cases different. My dad has talked to me about how some judges are mean and dont play or some are nicer than others but now it fully makes sense. I think it was worth having him come talk to our class because now we have heard a cop and a lawye.
ReplyDelete^going off of that comment, something else that really stuck with me was that case he told us about how the woman shot the man and she was out of jail in hours and could see her kids. I agree with him saying that is sexism playing itself. I can def tell that if it was a male, he wouldnt be allowed to see the kids or be out that fast. I feel as though in society today, females are seen as nicer and less harmful so I think that is why she was allowed to see the kids
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Dan’s talk. I had no idea about a lot of the things he mentioned. One thing would be that only five percent of lawyers actually step into a court room. That surprised me. Also, when he said that there are some firms that don’t even try cases, they just deal with them outside the court, that amazed me. I never really thought about how many cases are already resolved before they even reach the court or if they even go to court at all. Another thing he said that really stuck with me is when he said that out of cops, he thinks about eighty percent are good and twenty bad, but out of lawyers, it’s reversed. This startled me. One, because I never would have thought there were that many bad lawyers, it seems outrageous. And two because there is such a little amount of good lawyers! It’s a catch twenty-two because if your someone without good connections or much money, chances are, you’re getting a bad lawyer. What he said in class today really spoke to me about the harsh reality that our criminal justice system has today. The lawyers in the movies and tv shows we are watching aren’t always so decisive and good as they seem, and also the cases and decisions are not made nearly as fast.
ReplyDeleteDan DeWoskin came out to me as a surprise because he was so Honest and he was straight up specially when he was talking about law school and how he hated it. It was a shock to me personally to hear that he hated law school because he was right, law school is very competitive and I had my mind sent up to believe that all lawyers were always in competition but, in Dans cases, law school is where he can get his degree and become a lawyer without fighting, stealing other grades or competing to be at the top of class but just to be good. When Dan was telling us about the case where the wife shoot her husband and she only got 6 hours of jail plus bond with no striction in contacting her kids, it seems as he believes that the punishments were unfair. Dan said “what if the situation was reversed? If the man shot the lady in the leg? The man would have gotten more than 6 hours of jail, maybe not even a bond and sure as hell not allowed to see the kids.” He also continued by saying that was pure sexism in that courtroom. It was as if he was disappointed in the way the system works and the fairness between a man and women even though the care was the same. So, it got me thinking that if what he said is true or not. In addition, most commercial lawyers will say anything to convince you but in fact, 95% of them have never stepped a foot in the courtroom. Which is crazy cause, why advertise if it’s not true. They are just using people trust.
ReplyDeleteThe talk with Dan was good. He mentioned a lot of information that I didn’t know before. It was interesting to hear what inspired him to become a lawyer. He said he was inspired by seeing “bad” lawyers like the ones who refer to their victims by the wrong name. It was also interesting to hear how easy it is to become a lawyer. He mentioned that once you pass, you’re a lawyer. There are a few exceptions like you have to be “death qualified” in a capital murder case, but other than that you can be hired right away. What surprised me the most is the fact that only 5% of all lawyers step foot in a courtroom. This was surprising because on TV, lawyers are almost always in the courtroom so I just figured that that was the case in real life, too. Something that stayed with me was the conversation when he gave an example about statutory rape. The example he used was a man in a 21 and older bar began talking to a woman who was also in the bar so he assumed that the woman was also over 21, and he saw her ID so he was pretty confident that she was 21 or older. They ended up having sexual intercourse and the next day he was arrested for rape. Dan said in court nothing else matters but the age of the people involved, so even though he thought she was over 21, it didn’t matter. Dan thought this was unfair and something that needed to be changed about the justice system, and I agreed with this statement.
ReplyDeleteI think going into this I didn't know much about what it's like to be a lawyer and I think he helped me get a very good understanding of what it's like. I think it's funny how he said he was inspired by horrible attorneys, and how he had witnessed attorneys forget their clients own name. It's also interesting that he taught us how only 5% of lawyers really stepped foot into the court room. I also think it's interesting how he talked about police officers and their reliability. He mentioned how the beginning of the day a police officer could take three pages of notes on a single speeding ticket, and by the end of the day write down three sentences about the same instance. He said that he thinks there's about 20 bed cops for every 80 good cops, which I feel like it's a pretty bad ratio to have. It also kind of freaked me out how he mentioned that being a police officer is great for people who love to bully others. I don't think he meant much to by it when he said it, but that was a very unsettling thing to hear. I did however like how he mentioned that cops cannot use my refusal to speak as a reason to qualify me guilty. Overall I think that I learned a lot from Dan and I'm really glad he came in, he really helped me understand more of what it's like to be a lawyer.
ReplyDelete