<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_04_2214246</id>
	<title>Charles Nesson Ruled Jointly Liable To Pay RIAA</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1267701060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"The highly anticipated Joel Tenenbaum trial ended in a disaster for Tenenbaum.  But worse for his <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/09/05/22/1951237/Nesson-amp-Camara-Increase-Attack-Against-RIAA">highly publicized</a> lawyer, Charles Nesson, they are <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/charles-nesson-scourge-of-the-record-labels-will-soon-be-paying-them.ars">both liable for payment of the court's decision to the RIAA</a>.  Nesson's pro bono agreement with Tenenbaum may turn out to be a seriously expensive experiment for the <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nesson/">Harvard Law Professor</a>."</i> As the Ars story points out, though, it's "some fees incurred by the RIAA during the trial" for which he'd be liable, not the whole judgment amount.</htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " The highly anticipated Joel Tenenbaum trial ended in a disaster for Tenenbaum .
But worse for his highly publicized lawyer , Charles Nesson , they are both liable for payment of the court 's decision to the RIAA .
Nesson 's pro bono agreement with Tenenbaum may turn out to be a seriously expensive experiment for the Harvard Law Professor .
" As the Ars story points out , though , it 's " some fees incurred by the RIAA during the trial " for which he 'd be liable , not the whole judgment amount .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "The highly anticipated Joel Tenenbaum trial ended in a disaster for Tenenbaum.
But worse for his highly publicized lawyer, Charles Nesson, they are both liable for payment of the court's decision to the RIAA.
Nesson's pro bono agreement with Tenenbaum may turn out to be a seriously expensive experiment for the Harvard Law Professor.
" As the Ars story points out, though, it's "some fees incurred by the RIAA during the trial" for which he'd be liable, not the whole judgment amount.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365436</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Dhalka226</author>
	<datestamp>1267710240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.</p></div></blockquote><p>I disagree.  The people who are "known" to be guilty are most in need of a good lawyer.  Not because I relish the thought of murderers getting off on technicalities, but because murderers getting off on technicalities is the only way to motivate police officers and prosecutors to do their jobs properly and respect peoples' rights.

</p><p>If somebody is "known" to be guilty then the only reason they should get off is police or prosecutorial misconduct, or it obviously wasn't as known as it sounded.  If they get off based on that, then they should have.  Sometimes guilty men have to go free to serve the greater concept of justice.  That's frankly a much more important goal than punishing an individual defender, no matter how dangerous he is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the OP was n't saying that lawyers should n't defend people accused of murder , just those that are clearly ( known to the lawyer himself ) guilty.I disagree .
The people who are " known " to be guilty are most in need of a good lawyer .
Not because I relish the thought of murderers getting off on technicalities , but because murderers getting off on technicalities is the only way to motivate police officers and prosecutors to do their jobs properly and respect peoples ' rights .
If somebody is " known " to be guilty then the only reason they should get off is police or prosecutorial misconduct , or it obviously was n't as known as it sounded .
If they get off based on that , then they should have .
Sometimes guilty men have to go free to serve the greater concept of justice .
That 's frankly a much more important goal than punishing an individual defender , no matter how dangerous he is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.I disagree.
The people who are "known" to be guilty are most in need of a good lawyer.
Not because I relish the thought of murderers getting off on technicalities, but because murderers getting off on technicalities is the only way to motivate police officers and prosecutors to do their jobs properly and respect peoples' rights.
If somebody is "known" to be guilty then the only reason they should get off is police or prosecutorial misconduct, or it obviously wasn't as known as it sounded.
If they get off based on that, then they should have.
Sometimes guilty men have to go free to serve the greater concept of justice.
That's frankly a much more important goal than punishing an individual defender, no matter how dangerous he is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364590</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>GMThomas</author>
	<datestamp>1267705500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be a good idea if the legal system was infallible.  How could you possible get a defense lawyer on your side if you had hard evidence lined up against you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be a good idea if the legal system was infallible .
How could you possible get a defense lawyer on your side if you had hard evidence lined up against you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be a good idea if the legal system was infallible.
How could you possible get a defense lawyer on your side if you had hard evidence lined up against you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31369486</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>metacell</author>
	<datestamp>1267793580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"And if that's wrong, I don't want to be right!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" And if that 's wrong , I do n't want to be right !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And if that's wrong, I don't want to be right!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365120</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267708080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.</p></div><p>You mean like a number of easily found examples where people thought someone was clearly guilty but those same defendants were later exonerated?  Everyone deserves legal defense otherwise we might as well have no legal system at all and just throw anyone accused of a crime straight in jail.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So the OP was n't saying that lawyers should n't defend people accused of murder , just those that are clearly ( known to the lawyer himself ) guilty.You mean like a number of easily found examples where people thought someone was clearly guilty but those same defendants were later exonerated ?
Everyone deserves legal defense otherwise we might as well have no legal system at all and just throw anyone accused of a crime straight in jail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.You mean like a number of easily found examples where people thought someone was clearly guilty but those same defendants were later exonerated?
Everyone deserves legal defense otherwise we might as well have no legal system at all and just throw anyone accused of a crime straight in jail.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1267705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a ridiculously bad idea.</p><p>First, not all lawyers know their clients are guilty.  They only know what their clients tell them, which may or may not be true.</p><p>Second, according to law, everyone is entitled to legal counsel and representation in a trial.  That's why we have public defenders.  Are you proposing that public defenders be given the same sentences as their clients, even though public defenders don't actually have a choice in who they represent?</p><p>The whole court system in Common Law countries is based on the idea of the adversarial system.  It's just like debating, where one debater (or team) may be assigned to argue for something they completely disagree with personally.</p><p>Of course, this does bring up the question of whether the adversarial system is really the best one or not.  Back to my comment with debating, the practice of debating shows that a talented person skilled at debating could convince a group of people to accept something totally wrong if his opponent is not as skilled as him.  For instance, in a debate about slavery, a talented debater could conceivably convince a group of laymen that slavery is actually a good idea and should be brought back, if his opponent is not very skilled.  This is similar to courtroom trials: the truth of the case is secondary to the skills of the lawyers, so guilt or innocence is highly dependent on how good (and thus expensive) your lawyer is.  People who can't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail, even if they're innocent.  The fact that juries are typically composed of the dumbest people from any particular population doesn't help; they're even more easily swayed by good-sounding arguments because they lack the critical thinking skills that better educated people have.</p><p>This is why I think the French/German Civil Code is a better way to design justice systems.  In those, the Judges are not former lawyers, they actually go to school to become judges, and their role is not merely to oversee a debate between two lawyers, but they're inquisitors: their role is to seek the truth.  Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they're simply not useful in determining guilt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a ridiculously bad idea.First , not all lawyers know their clients are guilty .
They only know what their clients tell them , which may or may not be true.Second , according to law , everyone is entitled to legal counsel and representation in a trial .
That 's why we have public defenders .
Are you proposing that public defenders be given the same sentences as their clients , even though public defenders do n't actually have a choice in who they represent ? The whole court system in Common Law countries is based on the idea of the adversarial system .
It 's just like debating , where one debater ( or team ) may be assigned to argue for something they completely disagree with personally.Of course , this does bring up the question of whether the adversarial system is really the best one or not .
Back to my comment with debating , the practice of debating shows that a talented person skilled at debating could convince a group of people to accept something totally wrong if his opponent is not as skilled as him .
For instance , in a debate about slavery , a talented debater could conceivably convince a group of laymen that slavery is actually a good idea and should be brought back , if his opponent is not very skilled .
This is similar to courtroom trials : the truth of the case is secondary to the skills of the lawyers , so guilt or innocence is highly dependent on how good ( and thus expensive ) your lawyer is .
People who ca n't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail , even if they 're innocent .
The fact that juries are typically composed of the dumbest people from any particular population does n't help ; they 're even more easily swayed by good-sounding arguments because they lack the critical thinking skills that better educated people have.This is why I think the French/German Civil Code is a better way to design justice systems .
In those , the Judges are not former lawyers , they actually go to school to become judges , and their role is not merely to oversee a debate between two lawyers , but they 're inquisitors : their role is to seek the truth .
Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they 're simply not useful in determining guilt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a ridiculously bad idea.First, not all lawyers know their clients are guilty.
They only know what their clients tell them, which may or may not be true.Second, according to law, everyone is entitled to legal counsel and representation in a trial.
That's why we have public defenders.
Are you proposing that public defenders be given the same sentences as their clients, even though public defenders don't actually have a choice in who they represent?The whole court system in Common Law countries is based on the idea of the adversarial system.
It's just like debating, where one debater (or team) may be assigned to argue for something they completely disagree with personally.Of course, this does bring up the question of whether the adversarial system is really the best one or not.
Back to my comment with debating, the practice of debating shows that a talented person skilled at debating could convince a group of people to accept something totally wrong if his opponent is not as skilled as him.
For instance, in a debate about slavery, a talented debater could conceivably convince a group of laymen that slavery is actually a good idea and should be brought back, if his opponent is not very skilled.
This is similar to courtroom trials: the truth of the case is secondary to the skills of the lawyers, so guilt or innocence is highly dependent on how good (and thus expensive) your lawyer is.
People who can't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail, even if they're innocent.
The fact that juries are typically composed of the dumbest people from any particular population doesn't help; they're even more easily swayed by good-sounding arguments because they lack the critical thinking skills that better educated people have.This is why I think the French/German Civil Code is a better way to design justice systems.
In those, the Judges are not former lawyers, they actually go to school to become judges, and their role is not merely to oversee a debate between two lawyers, but they're inquisitors: their role is to seek the truth.
Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they're simply not useful in determining guilt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31370656</id>
	<title>Stupid lawyer, stupid trial</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1267803060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
The lawyer was an idiot and did stupid shit during the trial.  He needs to lay off the acid.
</p><p>
I still don't like the ruling though.  The issue here is we have the following damage awards:
</p><p>
[300 dollars here, and the filer is asinine]
</p><p>
For the following actual damages:
</p><p>
$
</p><p>
So we find 30 offenses
</p><p>
And looking above... yeah you see where I'm going with this.  This is wrong.  Maybe double or triple damages, or even 10 times the damages (30 offense, $300 fine).  Think about it.  10 times actual damages.  You get a song for $1.29 on iTunes, you commit 1000 offenses, you incur a $12,900 fine.  Ouch.  Steep for something that cost really $129?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... we had 24 offenses come with a $200,000 fine.  Do you see it?
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawyer was an idiot and did stupid shit during the trial .
He needs to lay off the acid .
I still do n't like the ruling though .
The issue here is we have the following damage awards : [ 300 dollars here , and the filer is asinine ] For the following actual damages : $ So we find 30 offenses And looking above... yeah you see where I 'm going with this .
This is wrong .
Maybe double or triple damages , or even 10 times the damages ( 30 offense , $ 300 fine ) .
Think about it .
10 times actual damages .
You get a song for $ 1.29 on iTunes , you commit 1000 offenses , you incur a $ 12,900 fine .
Ouch. Steep for something that cost really $ 129 ?
... we had 24 offenses come with a $ 200,000 fine .
Do you see it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
The lawyer was an idiot and did stupid shit during the trial.
He needs to lay off the acid.
I still don't like the ruling though.
The issue here is we have the following damage awards:

[300 dollars here, and the filer is asinine]

For the following actual damages:

$

So we find 30 offenses

And looking above... yeah you see where I'm going with this.
This is wrong.
Maybe double or triple damages, or even 10 times the damages (30 offense, $300 fine).
Think about it.
10 times actual damages.
You get a song for $1.29 on iTunes, you commit 1000 offenses, you incur a $12,900 fine.
Ouch.  Steep for something that cost really $129?
... we had 24 offenses come with a $200,000 fine.
Do you see it?
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364608</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then you would end up with only prosecution/plaintiff lawyers and never any defense lawyers. Not to mention that public defenders don't choose who they are defending, innocent people sometimes get convicted, and sometimes the lawyer doesn't even know if their client is guilty or not. Heck lawyers aren't really supposed to care if their client is guilty or not, because it is their professional duty to represent someone in a place with convoluted and illogical rules.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you would end up with only prosecution/plaintiff lawyers and never any defense lawyers .
Not to mention that public defenders do n't choose who they are defending , innocent people sometimes get convicted , and sometimes the lawyer does n't even know if their client is guilty or not .
Heck lawyers are n't really supposed to care if their client is guilty or not , because it is their professional duty to represent someone in a place with convoluted and illogical rules .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you would end up with only prosecution/plaintiff lawyers and never any defense lawyers.
Not to mention that public defenders don't choose who they are defending, innocent people sometimes get convicted, and sometimes the lawyer doesn't even know if their client is guilty or not.
Heck lawyers aren't really supposed to care if their client is guilty or not, because it is their professional duty to represent someone in a place with convoluted and illogical rules.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366174</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267715700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People who can't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail, even if they're innocent.</p></div><p>Solution: give everyone publicly-funded lawyers, randomly selected from a pool.  Don't permit privately-hired lawyers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People who ca n't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail , even if they 're innocent.Solution : give everyone publicly-funded lawyers , randomly selected from a pool .
Do n't permit privately-hired lawyers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who can't afford lawyers and get public defenders thus are much less likely to prevail, even if they're innocent.Solution: give everyone publicly-funded lawyers, randomly selected from a pool.
Don't permit privately-hired lawyers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31367756</id>
	<title>misleading headline</title>
	<author>taoye</author>
	<datestamp>1267728540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Way to write a misleading headline. Nesson is only liable for the fees related to the motion to compel, which will be going to their lawyers, not the RIAA themselves, right?  As explained in the article is normal practice. Nothing to see here, move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Way to write a misleading headline .
Nesson is only liable for the fees related to the motion to compel , which will be going to their lawyers , not the RIAA themselves , right ?
As explained in the article is normal practice .
Nothing to see here , move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Way to write a misleading headline.
Nesson is only liable for the fees related to the motion to compel, which will be going to their lawyers, not the RIAA themselves, right?
As explained in the article is normal practice.
Nothing to see here, move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31367746</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267728480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they're simply not useful in determining guilt.</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>But they're excellent in terms of deterring tyranny.  Both of the countries you mention could have used some lessons in this area, recently even.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they 're simply not useful in determining guilt .
  But they 're excellent in terms of deterring tyranny .
Both of the countries you mention could have used some lessons in this area , recently even .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of these countries have also eliminated juries as they're simply not useful in determining guilt.
  But they're excellent in terms of deterring tyranny.
Both of the countries you mention could have used some lessons in this area, recently even.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31369648</id>
	<title>don't patronize the RIAA</title>
	<author>blueworm</author>
	<datestamp>1267795500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The RIAA and MPAA are still powerful because people still buy products which support them. Check RIAA.org 's list of member companies if you're buying anything music related. For movies, it's a bit easier, but the member studios are nonetheless listed on MPAA.org as well. People need to stop complaining and stop buying to starve these guys of cash more effectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The RIAA and MPAA are still powerful because people still buy products which support them .
Check RIAA.org 's list of member companies if you 're buying anything music related .
For movies , it 's a bit easier , but the member studios are nonetheless listed on MPAA.org as well .
People need to stop complaining and stop buying to starve these guys of cash more effectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The RIAA and MPAA are still powerful because people still buy products which support them.
Check RIAA.org 's list of member companies if you're buying anything music related.
For movies, it's a bit easier, but the member studios are nonetheless listed on MPAA.org as well.
People need to stop complaining and stop buying to starve these guys of cash more effectively.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366858</id>
	<title>WAIT .... THIS COULE BE A TRAP!!</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1267721280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Prof. Nesson can claim that the song he 'uploaded' is for academic purpose, i.e. for other people to study the case. And now the court is sanctioning him ( 'found guilty' ) of his 'copyright infringement' behavior. Not only that the fair use clause is ignored, now he is being sanctioned without a fair trial.</p><p>I smell a trick behind. Don't underestimate him. Especially he is a professor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Prof. Nesson can claim that the song he 'uploaded ' is for academic purpose , i.e .
for other people to study the case .
And now the court is sanctioning him ( 'found guilty ' ) of his 'copyright infringement ' behavior .
Not only that the fair use clause is ignored , now he is being sanctioned without a fair trial.I smell a trick behind .
Do n't underestimate him .
Especially he is a professor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Prof. Nesson can claim that the song he 'uploaded' is for academic purpose, i.e.
for other people to study the case.
And now the court is sanctioning him ( 'found guilty' ) of his 'copyright infringement' behavior.
Not only that the fair use clause is ignored, now he is being sanctioned without a fair trial.I smell a trick behind.
Don't underestimate him.
Especially he is a professor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364606</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>ChapterS</author>
	<datestamp>1267705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>asdfasfdasdfasfd</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>asdfasfdasdfasfd</tokentext>
<sentencetext>asdfasfdasdfasfd</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365268</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>LordLucless</author>
	<datestamp>1267709100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unfortunately, remove juries and you remove jury nullification. The purpose of a jury (ostensibly) is to ensure that punishments are not imposed arbitrarily by the state; they always have authority of the the peers of the one being judged.</p><p>"I consider...[trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; - Thomas Jefferson</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , remove juries and you remove jury nullification .
The purpose of a jury ( ostensibly ) is to ensure that punishments are not imposed arbitrarily by the state ; they always have authority of the the peers of the one being judged .
" I consider... [ trial by jury ] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man , by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution .
"         - Thomas Jefferson</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, remove juries and you remove jury nullification.
The purpose of a jury (ostensibly) is to ensure that punishments are not imposed arbitrarily by the state; they always have authority of the the peers of the one being judged.
"I consider...[trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.
"
        - Thomas Jefferson</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364656</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>trb</author>
	<datestamp>1267705740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Defense lawyers don't defend their clients' crimes.  They defend their clients' rights.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Defense lawyers do n't defend their clients ' crimes .
They defend their clients ' rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defense lawyers don't defend their clients' crimes.
They defend their clients' rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366830</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1267721160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So is there any reason we can't have "Judge nullification" on the same principle??</p><p>I seem to recall that there have been a few cases in civil court, where a Judge threw out a big judgment as being patently unfair or even outright insane.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So is there any reason we ca n't have " Judge nullification " on the same principle ?
? I seem to recall that there have been a few cases in civil court , where a Judge threw out a big judgment as being patently unfair or even outright insane .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is there any reason we can't have "Judge nullification" on the same principle?
?I seem to recall that there have been a few cases in civil court, where a Judge threw out a big judgment as being patently unfair or even outright insane.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365268</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267705260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder.</i></p><p>And how does the one who is falsely accused of murder secure council in your hypothetical reality?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't want to get electrocuted , do n't represent a murder.And how does the one who is falsely accused of murder secure council in your hypothetical reality ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder.And how does the one who is falsely accused of murder secure council in your hypothetical reality?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31369646</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>umghhh</author>
	<datestamp>1267795500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you need a lawyer t o presnt and defend your case not to pretend you are not guilty. Even if you killed somebody there is a legal difference whether this was a man slaughter or murder etc. and this difference may make you avoid execution squad even if lawyer does not pretend you are innocent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you need a lawyer t o presnt and defend your case not to pretend you are not guilty .
Even if you killed somebody there is a legal difference whether this was a man slaughter or murder etc .
and this difference may make you avoid execution squad even if lawyer does not pretend you are innocent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you need a lawyer t o presnt and defend your case not to pretend you are not guilty.
Even if you killed somebody there is a legal difference whether this was a man slaughter or murder etc.
and this difference may make you avoid execution squad even if lawyer does not pretend you are innocent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31378540</id>
	<title>NewYorkCountryLawyer?</title>
	<author>Theaetetus</author>
	<datestamp>1267808100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>He's always ready to speak about these cases, so why is he silent on this one?</htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's always ready to speak about these cases , so why is he silent on this one ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's always ready to speak about these cases, so why is he silent on this one?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364604</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>BlueBlade</author>
	<datestamp>1267705560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't figure if you're a troll or not, but if you are serious, this is one of the most stupid comment I've ever read on slashdot. The consequences of such a system are immediatly obvious: nobody would ever want to risk their own lives to defend anyone accused of a serious crime, even for cases where the accused is almost certainly innocent (why risk it at all?).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't figure if you 're a troll or not , but if you are serious , this is one of the most stupid comment I 've ever read on slashdot .
The consequences of such a system are immediatly obvious : nobody would ever want to risk their own lives to defend anyone accused of a serious crime , even for cases where the accused is almost certainly innocent ( why risk it at all ?
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't figure if you're a troll or not, but if you are serious, this is one of the most stupid comment I've ever read on slashdot.
The consequences of such a system are immediatly obvious: nobody would ever want to risk their own lives to defend anyone accused of a serious crime, even for cases where the accused is almost certainly innocent (why risk it at all?
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365046</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1267707720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the lawyer himself is not infallible.<br>The legal system is not based on, "oh he is obviously guilty so he does not require a fair trial".<br>The trial itself is the indicator of guilt, not the lawyer.</p><p>One way to take that idea to it logical extension (IMHO) is just to give police the ability to execute/punish anyone they judge obviously guilty, it would save the courts a lot of money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the lawyer himself is not infallible.The legal system is not based on , " oh he is obviously guilty so he does not require a fair trial " .The trial itself is the indicator of guilt , not the lawyer.One way to take that idea to it logical extension ( IMHO ) is just to give police the ability to execute/punish anyone they judge obviously guilty , it would save the courts a lot of money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the lawyer himself is not infallible.The legal system is not based on, "oh he is obviously guilty so he does not require a fair trial".The trial itself is the indicator of guilt, not the lawyer.One way to take that idea to it logical extension (IMHO) is just to give police the ability to execute/punish anyone they judge obviously guilty, it would save the courts a lot of money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366086</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>CorporateSuit</author>
	<datestamp>1267715220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps if we had a legal system that wasn't so convoluted with bylaws that the layman could be considered "competent" when defending himself in the eyes of a judge without spending 4 years in lawschool, then representation wouldn't be the requirement it is today.  We have a system of laws written and practiced by lawyers to a point where it's not whether you did right or wrong, it's whether your lawyer can prove you did right or wrong.  It's a flaw inhereted from the British system, and thoroughly perverted with each generation.<br> <br>
I understand that the bylaws cut down drastically on the amount of time and headaches it takes for a judge to review a case, but the fact that 299,990,000 Americans have to suffer for the sake of 10,000 judges -- and the fact that judges were created for the cases, not cases for the judges, the process has reversed itself from serving the people to treating a judge as royalty.<br> <br>
There are no easy answers, and we're at the point, or quickly getting there, where we've exhausted the pros of the path we've chosen with our legal system.  If we destructured the legal system to its bare bones, the same people who manipulate it now will probably have an easier time manipulating it then.  However, those who do not manipulate it now will find more ground on which to stand by themselves.<br> <br>
How do we do that?  It would take a smarter man than I to know even where to begin.  However, there are some symptoms that must be cleared up before we can call any revision as approaching successful:   Prisons in the US need to be cleared out.  Take non-dangerous, non-violent crimes and cut down on their prison time, but increase their community service time, or increase their fines.  The theory of medical malpractice needs to be completely revamped.  Too many people are going to the hospital to get their bank accounts fixed more than their health.  Too many people have forgotten that death comes to us all, especially in hospitals.  If the doctor did his best or performed reasonably competently (according to a jury of his randomly-sampled peers -- other doctors in the same field) then there is no malpractice case.  A family can grieve without punishing the man who tried to save a life and failed.  Medical malpractice is the new life insurance -- that everyone else ends up paying through healthcare costs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps if we had a legal system that was n't so convoluted with bylaws that the layman could be considered " competent " when defending himself in the eyes of a judge without spending 4 years in lawschool , then representation would n't be the requirement it is today .
We have a system of laws written and practiced by lawyers to a point where it 's not whether you did right or wrong , it 's whether your lawyer can prove you did right or wrong .
It 's a flaw inhereted from the British system , and thoroughly perverted with each generation .
I understand that the bylaws cut down drastically on the amount of time and headaches it takes for a judge to review a case , but the fact that 299,990,000 Americans have to suffer for the sake of 10,000 judges -- and the fact that judges were created for the cases , not cases for the judges , the process has reversed itself from serving the people to treating a judge as royalty .
There are no easy answers , and we 're at the point , or quickly getting there , where we 've exhausted the pros of the path we 've chosen with our legal system .
If we destructured the legal system to its bare bones , the same people who manipulate it now will probably have an easier time manipulating it then .
However , those who do not manipulate it now will find more ground on which to stand by themselves .
How do we do that ?
It would take a smarter man than I to know even where to begin .
However , there are some symptoms that must be cleared up before we can call any revision as approaching successful : Prisons in the US need to be cleared out .
Take non-dangerous , non-violent crimes and cut down on their prison time , but increase their community service time , or increase their fines .
The theory of medical malpractice needs to be completely revamped .
Too many people are going to the hospital to get their bank accounts fixed more than their health .
Too many people have forgotten that death comes to us all , especially in hospitals .
If the doctor did his best or performed reasonably competently ( according to a jury of his randomly-sampled peers -- other doctors in the same field ) then there is no malpractice case .
A family can grieve without punishing the man who tried to save a life and failed .
Medical malpractice is the new life insurance -- that everyone else ends up paying through healthcare costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps if we had a legal system that wasn't so convoluted with bylaws that the layman could be considered "competent" when defending himself in the eyes of a judge without spending 4 years in lawschool, then representation wouldn't be the requirement it is today.
We have a system of laws written and practiced by lawyers to a point where it's not whether you did right or wrong, it's whether your lawyer can prove you did right or wrong.
It's a flaw inhereted from the British system, and thoroughly perverted with each generation.
I understand that the bylaws cut down drastically on the amount of time and headaches it takes for a judge to review a case, but the fact that 299,990,000 Americans have to suffer for the sake of 10,000 judges -- and the fact that judges were created for the cases, not cases for the judges, the process has reversed itself from serving the people to treating a judge as royalty.
There are no easy answers, and we're at the point, or quickly getting there, where we've exhausted the pros of the path we've chosen with our legal system.
If we destructured the legal system to its bare bones, the same people who manipulate it now will probably have an easier time manipulating it then.
However, those who do not manipulate it now will find more ground on which to stand by themselves.
How do we do that?
It would take a smarter man than I to know even where to begin.
However, there are some symptoms that must be cleared up before we can call any revision as approaching successful:   Prisons in the US need to be cleared out.
Take non-dangerous, non-violent crimes and cut down on their prison time, but increase their community service time, or increase their fines.
The theory of medical malpractice needs to be completely revamped.
Too many people are going to the hospital to get their bank accounts fixed more than their health.
Too many people have forgotten that death comes to us all, especially in hospitals.
If the doctor did his best or performed reasonably competently (according to a jury of his randomly-sampled peers -- other doctors in the same field) then there is no malpractice case.
A family can grieve without punishing the man who tried to save a life and failed.
Medical malpractice is the new life insurance -- that everyone else ends up paying through healthcare costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366230</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>BigJClark</author>
	<datestamp>1267716120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>
Presumably, the prosecution would be electrocuted if they failed to convict said one.  It's got to be fair, y'know<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably , the prosecution would be electrocuted if they failed to convict said one .
It 's got to be fair , y'know ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Presumably, the prosecution would be electrocuted if they failed to convict said one.
It's got to be fair, y'know ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365170</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Jedi Alec</author>
	<datestamp>1267708440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck. That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.".</i></p><p><i>So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.</i></p><p><i>I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.</i></p><p>Under US law anyone accused of a crime is entitled to an attorney. Attorneys are bound by an ethical code that they must do everything possible within the law to represent their clients to the best of their abilities. So what is an attorney supposed to do when the judge asks how the defendant pleas? "Not guilty your honor, even though you and I both know the sooner we strap him to the electric chair, the better off we'll be."</p><p>And another interesting part of US law...people are presumed innocent until <b>proven</b> guilty. So a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, "knowing his client is clearly guilty" is an impossibility in itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the OP had in mind ( I assume ) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone , just for the buck .
That 's where this joke comes comes from : " How do you tell when a lawyer is lying ?
His lips are moving .
" .So the OP was n't saying that lawyers should n't defend people accused of murder , just those that are clearly ( known to the lawyer himself ) guilty.I , for one , think his idea warrants some attention , at least.Under US law anyone accused of a crime is entitled to an attorney .
Attorneys are bound by an ethical code that they must do everything possible within the law to represent their clients to the best of their abilities .
So what is an attorney supposed to do when the judge asks how the defendant pleas ?
" Not guilty your honor , even though you and I both know the sooner we strap him to the electric chair , the better off we 'll be .
" And another interesting part of US law...people are presumed innocent until proven guilty .
So a lawyer , or anyone else for that matter , " knowing his client is clearly guilty " is an impossibility in itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck.
That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying?
His lips are moving.
".So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.Under US law anyone accused of a crime is entitled to an attorney.
Attorneys are bound by an ethical code that they must do everything possible within the law to represent their clients to the best of their abilities.
So what is an attorney supposed to do when the judge asks how the defendant pleas?
"Not guilty your honor, even though you and I both know the sooner we strap him to the electric chair, the better off we'll be.
"And another interesting part of US law...people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
So a lawyer, or anyone else for that matter, "knowing his client is clearly guilty" is an impossibility in itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31367368</id>
	<title>Right.....</title>
	<author>Jesus IS the Devil</author>
	<datestamp>1267724820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck Britain</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck Britain</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck Britain</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364648</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267705680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've long felt that you should be gang-raped by a dozen well hung niggers.  They can bend you over and tie you down, then sodomize your asshole at their conveniences, taking a break every so often to drink a 40, smoke up, shoot up, etc, pop viagra.  They'll also make you suck their cocks clean, I mean, who likes a shit on a penis??!?!  Maybe you can lick their assholes clean, too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've long felt that you should be gang-raped by a dozen well hung niggers .
They can bend you over and tie you down , then sodomize your asshole at their conveniences , taking a break every so often to drink a 40 , smoke up , shoot up , etc , pop viagra .
They 'll also make you suck their cocks clean , I mean , who likes a shit on a penis ? ? ! ? !
Maybe you can lick their assholes clean , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've long felt that you should be gang-raped by a dozen well hung niggers.
They can bend you over and tie you down, then sodomize your asshole at their conveniences, taking a break every so often to drink a 40, smoke up, shoot up, etc, pop viagra.
They'll also make you suck their cocks clean, I mean, who likes a shit on a penis??!?!
Maybe you can lick their assholes clean, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365702</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Ohrion</author>
	<datestamp>1267712160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish I had mod points left. This is a good point you make.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I had mod points left .
This is a good point you make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I had mod points left.
This is a good point you make.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365610</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>berashith</author>
	<datestamp>1267711380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>great speech ! that needed its own theme music</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>great speech !
that needed its own theme music</tokentext>
<sentencetext>great speech !
that needed its own theme music</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>blind biker</author>
	<datestamp>1267706220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck. That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying? His lips are moving.".</p><p>So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people <b>accused</b> of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.</p><p>I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the OP had in mind ( I assume ) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone , just for the buck .
That 's where this joke comes comes from : " How do you tell when a lawyer is lying ?
His lips are moving .
" .So the OP was n't saying that lawyers should n't defend people accused of murder , just those that are clearly ( known to the lawyer himself ) guilty.I , for one , think his idea warrants some attention , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the OP had in mind (I assume) is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone, just for the buck.
That's where this joke comes comes from: "How do you tell when a lawyer is lying?
His lips are moving.
".So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.I, for one, think his idea warrants some attention, at least.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364650</id>
	<title>I'm thinking</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267705680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A trial lawyer gets unfairly executed.....</p><p>I'm thinking, I'm thinking!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A trial lawyer gets unfairly executed.....I 'm thinking , I 'm thinking !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A trial lawyer gets unfairly executed.....I'm thinking, I'm thinking!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364894</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267706880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lawyers should defend all people to their best ability, it's not their job to determine the clients guilt. They are lawyers, not Judge and Jury. I think you are confused as to the nature of our legal system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lawyers should defend all people to their best ability , it 's not their job to determine the clients guilt .
They are lawyers , not Judge and Jury .
I think you are confused as to the nature of our legal system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lawyers should defend all people to their best ability, it's not their job to determine the clients guilt.
They are lawyers, not Judge and Jury.
I think you are confused as to the nature of our legal system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31367254</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267724040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I like about Civil Law (and even Roman Catholic Canon Law) systems is that in some ways they are like mathematics books.  Put in mathematical parlance, a judge looks at the facts of the case to see if according to the various definitions to see if any provisions in the law were triggered.  Academics write books full of corollaries and hypothetical theorems, with accompanying explanations (i.e. proofs).  After all of that you arrive at a conclusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I like about Civil Law ( and even Roman Catholic Canon Law ) systems is that in some ways they are like mathematics books .
Put in mathematical parlance , a judge looks at the facts of the case to see if according to the various definitions to see if any provisions in the law were triggered .
Academics write books full of corollaries and hypothetical theorems , with accompanying explanations ( i.e .
proofs ) . After all of that you arrive at a conclusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I like about Civil Law (and even Roman Catholic Canon Law) systems is that in some ways they are like mathematics books.
Put in mathematical parlance, a judge looks at the facts of the case to see if according to the various definitions to see if any provisions in the law were triggered.
Academics write books full of corollaries and hypothetical theorems, with accompanying explanations (i.e.
proofs).  After all of that you arrive at a conclusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364672</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>sheetsda</author>
	<datestamp>1267705860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mea culpa:  Should say "counsel".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mea culpa : Should say " counsel " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mea culpa:  Should say "counsel".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364640</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>DeadDecoy</author>
	<datestamp>1267705620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's stupid because it presumes that the prosecuted party is guilty and might prevent them from finding the means to defend themselves. Ya there's a lot of scum out there, but it's not impossible for the innocent to get accused as well, which is why we have trials in the first place: to determine guilt. Another way in which this is stupid is that large companies can easily leverage more capital to go after the guy with less money. So in addition to already having the odds stacked against them financially, your suggestion would prevent any defence attorney from taking on a risky case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's stupid because it presumes that the prosecuted party is guilty and might prevent them from finding the means to defend themselves .
Ya there 's a lot of scum out there , but it 's not impossible for the innocent to get accused as well , which is why we have trials in the first place : to determine guilt .
Another way in which this is stupid is that large companies can easily leverage more capital to go after the guy with less money .
So in addition to already having the odds stacked against them financially , your suggestion would prevent any defence attorney from taking on a risky case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's stupid because it presumes that the prosecuted party is guilty and might prevent them from finding the means to defend themselves.
Ya there's a lot of scum out there, but it's not impossible for the innocent to get accused as well, which is why we have trials in the first place: to determine guilt.
Another way in which this is stupid is that large companies can easily leverage more capital to go after the guy with less money.
So in addition to already having the odds stacked against them financially, your suggestion would prevent any defence attorney from taking on a risky case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</id>
	<title>Good and bad.</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267705020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client.  Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder.  Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole?  Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.</p><p>Of courses the one time that actually happens, it turns out that the lawyer is getting raped unfairly as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client .
Do n't want to get electrocuted , do n't represent a murder .
Do n't want to end up a million dollars in the hole ?
Do n't represent a doctor who 's clearly guilty of malpractice.Of courses the one time that actually happens , it turns out that the lawyer is getting raped unfairly as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client.
Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder.
Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole?
Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.Of courses the one time that actually happens, it turns out that the lawyer is getting raped unfairly as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364588</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1267705440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Uh, everyone is entitled to defense.  Even if the person is guilty of the crime, maybe the circumstances dictate it was an accident with no intent.  Sometimes that's still a criminal offense but the punishment would be less severe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , everyone is entitled to defense .
Even if the person is guilty of the crime , maybe the circumstances dictate it was an accident with no intent .
Sometimes that 's still a criminal offense but the punishment would be less severe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, everyone is entitled to defense.
Even if the person is guilty of the crime, maybe the circumstances dictate it was an accident with no intent.
Sometimes that's still a criminal offense but the punishment would be less severe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365524</id>
	<title>Re:Good and bad.</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1267710720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the bone</i></p><p>Citation? How does a lawyer know they're guilty - do they have access to evidence that the prosecution and jury do not?</p><p>Intentionally withholding evidence would be worrying. I suspect what you really mean is that lawyers defend people that they <i>think</i> are guilty. But so what? It means they are able to put making a rational argument above whatever their personal prejudices maybe - the latter often turn out to be wrong.</p><p><i>So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.</i></p><p>And how exactly do we judge this? After having the trial to see if someone's guilty, we now have to have a trial to see if the lawyer knew this person was guilty, even before the person's trial was over? And who represents the lawyer in this case...?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the boneCitation ?
How does a lawyer know they 're guilty - do they have access to evidence that the prosecution and jury do not ? Intentionally withholding evidence would be worrying .
I suspect what you really mean is that lawyers defend people that they think are guilty .
But so what ?
It means they are able to put making a rational argument above whatever their personal prejudices maybe - the latter often turn out to be wrong.So the OP was n't saying that lawyers should n't defend people accused of murder , just those that are clearly ( known to the lawyer himself ) guilty.And how exactly do we judge this ?
After having the trial to see if someone 's guilty , we now have to have a trial to see if the lawyer knew this person was guilty , even before the person 's trial was over ?
And who represents the lawyer in this case... ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that lawyers often defend people whom they know to be guilty to the boneCitation?
How does a lawyer know they're guilty - do they have access to evidence that the prosecution and jury do not?Intentionally withholding evidence would be worrying.
I suspect what you really mean is that lawyers defend people that they think are guilty.
But so what?
It means they are able to put making a rational argument above whatever their personal prejudices maybe - the latter often turn out to be wrong.So the OP wasn't saying that lawyers shouldn't defend people accused of murder, just those that are clearly (known to the lawyer himself) guilty.And how exactly do we judge this?
After having the trial to see if someone's guilty, we now have to have a trial to see if the lawyer knew this person was guilty, even before the person's trial was over?
And who represents the lawyer in this case...?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31369646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365170
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364606
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31367254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364650
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366086
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365610
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364640
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364672
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365268
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31367746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_04_2214246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31369486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2214246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31369648
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_04_2214246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364538
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364650
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364672
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364764
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364894
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365120
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366086
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365046
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31369646
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365170
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365436
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31369486
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365610
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365702
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364670
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31365268
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31367254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31366174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31367746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364590
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_04_2214246.31364656
</commentlist>
</conversation>
