Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Abandoning the Work I Hated

opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#21

Post by DanBC »

collyw wrote: post #17
a_bonobo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's implied in this OP that the author did not see any meaning in his lawyer job, there's nothing "bigger than him" he's working for, just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison. There's no "bigger" purpose in that. As a party clown/musician there is purpose - he can make kids happy, he knows that "something in his future is expected of him", his work is extremely meaningful to the kids…

"just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison". If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).

Part of a lawyer's job is to reduce the sentence faced by people found guilty.

That's not a bad thing.

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#22

Post by kagamine »

toothbrush wrote: post #13

While i wouldn't personally become a clown (matter of preference), i really admire this guy's courage. I frequently think about upping and leaving the security of a cushy job, and it's a lot easier said than done. Freedom is scary!

> While i wouldn't personally become a clown

For some of us there isn't a choice. sad clown face

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#23

Post by [deleted] »

skrebbel wrote: post #11
patkai wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wisdom and happiness are often boring (try reading the meditations of Marcus Aurelius, I loved it but occasionally yawned). "Success" at any cost, extremes, pain, murder, 168 hour code sprints are more thrilling.

> .., 168 hour code sprints are more thrilling. "So then I downed the fifth Red Bull that hour and wondered whether I better change that for loop into a while loop because the first operand was empty anyway." Can't wait for the novel!

[deleted]

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#25

Post by 616c »

I have a kid. And that is the only reason I do not abandon my pointless work.

Anyone like this do it, and survive? I would love to see more motivational stories.

Those who transitioned to professional clown work appreciated!

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#26

Post by dghf »

angdis wrote: post #18
collyw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison". If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).

It is perfectly fine to judge. Having been a juror in criminal cases involving repeat offenders and lived in cities with crime problems, I can tell you that actual criminals being found "not guilty" or guilty and given probation (nothing) is MORE common than justice being served. The system is comically far from perfect.

Can you tell us how you know that some people found not guilty really were guilty? Was it a case of the jury thinking that the accused was more likely guilty than not, but there was still reasonable doubt? Or did the accused admit to an act which many laypeople would consider a crime, but then got acquitted on a technicality? Or were you privy to information and insight denied to your fellow jurors?

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#27

Post by tzs »

chkuendig wrote: post #16

In case the end of the article got you as curious as me, this is the guy's page: http://www.movingtothebeat.net/about-robert.html

The picture at the top right in the block of pictures on the left side says it all.

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#28

Post by marincounty »

ommunist wrote: post #14

If this is true, he is one of the most courageous guys in Americas.

Becoming a lawyer is different than let's say becoming a doctor. The lawyers I know barely make a living. The profession is not the ticket to "the good life", like it was in the 50's.

I don't know what school he graduated from. Why he ended up as a criminal attorney? How good/ethical of an attorney he was? (I throw in ethical because it's not judged by the typical client, like I feel it should? Maybe, their really isn't a good way to judge a person ethics?)

Anyway, he made a life change. He can always go back to law, so in reality it's not that heroic of an act. He still has his degree, and passed the bar in his state. He definetly has a fallback. A fallback most of us don't have? It's very common to lawyers to pass the bar, and never practice law.

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#29

Post by collyw »

saiya-jin wrote: post #19
collyw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"just making a lot of money keeping actual criminals out of prison". If the defendants were not found guilty then they are not "criminals". Unless you were in court then you really ought not to judge. (Though I am aware the the American justice system is probably way less perfect than it claims to be).

person committing a crime is a criminal, no matter if justice system finds him guilty (I mean come on, we all know similar cases). reciting some law textbooks seems a bit ridiculous in face of reality

Sure but in the absence of other evidence, only one person really knows the truth. How can you be sure that a person you think is criminal is actually one? If you have the evidence to know that, then you should be able to convict them.

Re: Abandoning the Work I Hated

#30

Post by frobozz »

dghf wrote: post #26
angdis wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is perfectly fine to judge. Having been a juror in criminal cases involving repeat offenders and lived in cities with crime problems, I can tell you that actual criminals being found "not guilty" or guilty and given probation (nothing) is MORE common than justice being served. The system is comically far from perfect.

Can you tell us how you know that some people found not guilty really were guilty? Was it a case of the jury thinking that the accused was more likely guilty than not, but there was still reasonable doubt? Or did the accused admit to an act which many laypeople would consider a crime, but then got acquitted on a technicality? Or were you privy to information and insight denied to your fellow jurors?

> repeat offenders ... actual criminals being found "not guilty"

One does not have to be guilty of the crime for which one is being tried, to be a criminal.

Regardless of the result, if a repeat offender is on trial, then there is a criminal in the dock. If said repeat offender is found not guilty, then, regardless of actual guilt of the offence in question, a criminal has been found "not guilty".

However, it would be appropriate to take angdis to task on the claim that this is "MORE common than justice being served", as that would require one to chart the difference between actual guilt and verdict for a significant majority of trials. That would be very tricky information to come by.

Post reply on HN