Legality and Speaker's Way adepts, How stuff works Options

[The Jake]

Let's say I'm a Speaker's Way adept. I decide on a career path on Law because I love the subject matter and I'm very, very good at public speaking and debating.

Assuming I'm a registered Adept and a normal SINner, whats to stop me using my adept powers in the courtroom? Is that legal?

- J.

[The Jake]

Come on.... 19+ views and not a single post??

- J.

[pbangarth]

If the court were working properly, then decisions would be based on logic and the law only. We all know how likely that is. It would seem to me that there would be as much resistance to adepts in the courtroom as there is on the football field.

[HappyDaze]

Other than Commanding Voice, most of the social powers don't really let you do anything superhuman - they just let you do human social-fu very well. It's not illegal to be very Charismatic or highly skilled at speaking, so I'd imagine Speaker's Way adept lawyers would be fine.

[The Jake]

I'm picturing the Pornomancer in the courtroom defending PCs against being caught on the job. It would be almost impossible to prosecute unless they were caught in the most scathing of circumstances. Even with negative modifiers, surely... ?

- J.

[HappyDaze]

What's the negative modifier for trying to convince someone that solid in-your-face evidence is wrong? Pretty hefty I'd imagine. This is where the other Attributes (Intution, Logic, and Willpower) will pull ahead of Charisma and Knowledge skills will rule.

[The Jake]

It is far easier to get dice to add to social rolls to persuade someone than it is to logic based rolls.

- J.

[HappyDaze]

True, but that doesn't mean you can always use your persuasion to counter a legal challenge - something that's not really a social test at all. In some situations, a non-AI computer could make a fine lawyer, and it has zero social ability.

[hobgoblin]

I would say it would depend on a jury trail or not.

If it is, a big freakin roll on the closing argument by the pornomancer could potentially seed enough doubt that they would go with not guilty.

Not that i see runners defended that way, unless they have valid sin's and didn't get shot on sight "resisting arrest"...

[HappyDaze]

Consider that many criminal courtrooms might have background counts that could nip magic a bit.

[Caadium]

What's the negative modifier for trying to convince someone that solid in-your-face evidence is wrong? Pretty hefty I'd imagine. This is where the other Attributes (Intution, Logic, and Willpower) will pull ahead of Charisma and Knowledge skills will rule.

True, but that doesn't mean you can always use your persuasion to counter a legal challenge - something that's not really a social test at all. In some situations, a non-AI computer could make a fine lawyer, and it has zero social ability.

Lets see if you can identify the double homicide case in which the following closing argument was used. The fact that DNA evidence tied the accused to the crime in many ways wound up not mattering at all. In the end, a good bit of social wrangling left 12 men and women with some amount of doubt.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!"

Now, I know that it wasn't this argument that made the case for the defense. But, the point is that charismatic lawyers made the jury doubt the solid evidence (by challening how it was collected and the people who collected it mostly).

Here are a few other points to consider:

• Lawyers have a fairly specific definition of what they can and can not do, as well as how they must behave.
  
• Magic, a rare commodity, has huge potential to negatively affect the income of many lawyers since most of them are not magically active.
  
• Most laws, including those that relate to how law is practiced, are written by lawyers.

When I put those together I see a system in which lawyers themselves would have collectively banned this type of practice. They are smart enough to know that evidence is only one part of the case; presentation is just as important.

[HappyDaze]

It really depends on if you are even allowing a jury trial. The enitre system could easily be automated.

[toturi]

Here are a few other points to consider:

• Lawyers have a fairly specific definition of what they can and can not do, as well as how they must behave.
  
• Magic, a rare commodity, has huge potential to negatively affect the income of many lawyers since most of them are not magically active.
  
• Most laws, including those that relate to how law is practiced, are written by lawyers.

When I put those together I see a system in which lawyers themselves would have collectively banned this type of practice. They are smart enough to know that evidence is only one part of the case; presentation is just as important.

Actually I'd see it as the lawyers themselves would work to entrench exactly this type of practice. An adept barrister and a very highly skilled (though mundane) solicitor. Imagine if you can actually bill a client for 2 person doing essentially the work of one. The cynic in me likes this double milking of the cash cow.

[HappyDaze]

Since none of the skills of a lawyer are Active, you could just represent youself with a few Rating 4 Knowsofts running on your commlink's sim module. Not that I'd recommend this for big cases, but for little things it should do fine.

[Stahlseele]

As for Evidence:
with SR's MAgic/Technology, how sure can you be that the evidence is not fake?
Great, now i have the image of a Troll-Pornomancer on a Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney BTL-Trip . .

[Cardul]

It really depends on if you are even allowing a jury trial. The enitre system could easily be automated.

How does one automate the right to Trial by Jury? I would believe that, actually, a Shadowrun team with SINs and an Speaker's Way Adept Lawyer would be very effective at these sorts of situations.With the right traits and build, said Lawyer could probably do the following things:

1) Phrase questions in such a way as to make the expert and prosecution witnesses trip up(or phrase followup questions to twist the words of the original statements in a very unfavourable light for the witness)

2) Undermine creditability of a witness through questions subtly phrased to make the Jury just not like them.

3) Deliver a stirring closing arguments that make whatever the prosecution says look dishonest and a lie.

It would be a very interesting sort of things, for sure.

[Mäx]

How does one automate the right to Trial by Jury?

By not giving one, ofcource.

[HappyDaze]

How does one automate the right to Trial by Jury?

Where does it say that this right still exists?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Where does it say that this right still exists?

Accused actually have rights? Imagine that...

[Digital Heroin]

If I were a cuththroat law firm I'd hire as many Speaker's Way adepts as I could grab... and a few Savants while I was at it. Never discount the man with the encyclopedic knowledge of the law and the ability to perceive the tiniest flaw in his opponents arguments.

Where does it say that this right still exists?

We're still talking a United Canadian American States (at least for Seattle) with a Constitution in line with that of its predecessors. Asking whether the right to a fair trial exists is like asking where is states the sky is still blue.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If I were a cuththroat law firm I'd hire as many Speaker's Way adepts as I could grab... and a few Savants while I was at it. Never discount the man with the encyclopedic knowledge of the law and the ability to perceive the tiniest flaw in his opponents arguments.



We're still talking a United Canadian American States (at least for Seattle) with a Constitution in line with that of its predecessors. Asking whether the right to a fair trial exists is like asking where is states the sky is still blue.

Not all campaigns take place in the UCAS...

[Digital Heroin]

Not all campaigns take place in the UCAS...

Hence the notation of "at least for Seattle." If your campaign doesn't have a legal system with representation, then this entire thread is irrelevant to you.

[Tiger Eyes]

In the UCAS, magic is still fairly frowned upon, especially for useful things like, oh, mind-probing a suspected criminal or for magical healing. I'd say that in the UCAS, a mage or adept using magically-enhanced (or outright magical) skills, techniques, or tricks would be outright banned from a courtroom. Just being known as a social adept would likely make judges suspicious, even if you didn't use your amazing social abilities, and I'd bet that having an adept on the opposing side of a trial would be grounds for a mistrial.

Now, in the NAN? Oh, hell yes. Then again, in the NAN, the cops can just mind-probe you, see if you committed the crime, and convict you. Jury trials? No, move directly to being staked out in the sun next to a fire-ant hill. When magic is used more in every-day life, some things become less necessary... But for non-criminal cases, like, say, petitioning for corporate rights... oh, yeah. Speaker way adepts would be so useful.

[Cardul]

But for non-criminal cases, like, say, petitioning for corporate rights... oh, yeah. Speaker way adepts would be so useful.

Heck, I am sure they make great lobbyists and politicians, too!

[HappyDaze]

We're still talking a United Canadian American States (at least for Seattle) with a Constitution in line with that of its predecessors. Asking whether the right to a fair trial exists is like asking where is states the sky is still blue.

The UCAS has dramatically reduced 'rights' for SINless, something that is FAR different than todays US laws, and right to a fair trial is thus by no means assured for a large number of people. So, are you so sure the sky is blue?