Appeal to emotion

Via the Washington Post/Volokh Conspiracy, this political advertisement attacking someone for having been a criminal defense attorney:


RGA spokesperson Jon Thompson defended the ad by commenting, “Vincent Sheheen made a deliberate choice to defend violent criminals who abused women and children. He is unfit and unprepared to serve as governor of South Carolina.” 

The comments are hilarious. From one:

You (as a lawyer) are much too easy on yourself. If you attend a top school and do well enough to freely choose the form of your practice, you should know at that time that you may be judged for your choice. If you followed the money to serve bad clients, and especially if you made a career of it, you should definitely be able to answer for it. If you can't or won't, we'll assume you're greedy, ambitious, or both; these may not disqualify you, but they certainly won't ennoble you

Obviously the author of the original post is biased and is just self-interestedly defending his own livelihood, right? It can't be that he has some special knowledge of the way the world works that makes it impossible for him to believe that justice could be adequately served if we just make sure we "punish the guilty".

Or this slightly more naive one:

I don't agree with the ad's criticism of Sheehen, but I don't see why it's out of bounds. Its an opportunity for Sheehen to respond and explain something about the legal profession, the adversary system, why he does what he does and why he believes that is right and why it makes him a good candidate for office.

Too funny, because the marketplace of ideas works so well and people love a good, passionless appeal to reason. Which is why this guy's comment is so great:

And Romney did a poor job of explaining why private equity firms like Bain are good for the country (if they are) just like the legal profession does a very poor job of explaining why the guy waving his willy at a bunch of kids on the playground gets a taxpayer funded legal aid lawyer.

Yes, that seems right. People just don't do a good enough job explaining why people's negative emotional reactions to things like being a corporate raider or criminal defense attorney may be misplaced. Another:

Why is the comment that this is what this man chose to do with his life out of bounds? Because we think what he did with his life is good? I don't see how its a special category of criticism.

He doesn't stop there:

Neither you, nor [the author] has explained why criticism of the legal profession is in some special out of bounds category. Is it because we think defense lawyers are important? 

Somebody's attempt to provide a well-reasoned rebuttal to the argument:

"Innocent until proven guilty" and "reasonable doubt" (not to mention “equal justice for all”) are no longer operative principles when defense counsel "spins", "lies" and "withholds" (etc.) all in the name of "justice" for a "client" (especially one with monetary resources). Clearly all levels of this nation's regulatory and judicial systems also greatly discount these “ancient” principles, concurrent with the abandonment of "mens rea".  

For those of you not versed in legal speak, mens rea is the mental state required for the commission of a particular crime (e.g. intent to kill for murder, whereas manslaughter doesn't necessarily include intent to kill). I think what this person is saying is that it's not what people do that matters, it's whether they are good or evil people? :)

He continues:

In the prescriptive and procedure driven society we in the USA are burdened with I think it is naive to believe that politicians, prosecutors and attorneys in general are guided by a certain set of highly developed, balanced (i.e., “professional”), ethical standards; like the rest of the populace each individual must consistently demonstrate their personal character and the "ethical standards of behavior" by which they conduct themself.

I think what he means is that people who just follow the letter of the law can still be criticized for not having the right personal character.

If the self-assuredness of people like this doesn't freak you out a little bit, then perhaps you and I have different levels of fear about the strength of emotion-fueled mobs.

Finally, perhaps my favorite exchange:

It's not that the RGA thinks that defendants shouldn't be represented at trial, it's just that the RGA thinks criminal defense attorneys are reprehensible scum who should be hounded out of all decent society to live lives of shameful remorse for their heinous deeds.

Followed by the rebuttal:

There are many members of "decent society" who are not governors of their state.

I mean, these people supporting the advertisement are absolutely right -- this candidate has apparently fallen short of their expectations of moral character. And they have every right to not vote for him based on that. But isn't that a little like saying that it's fine for Catholics to have certain jobs but not be governor (especially if we happen to be God fearing protestants)? That we can allow atheists to join the city council maybe, but definitely not allow them to corrupt our children as grammar school teachers? If you're Sunni and we're Shiite, you have failed our moral character test? I know some of you have strong feelings about morality. I guess I'm just making the point that they are largely subjective and that a lot of people would not agree with you and that they are just as right as you are, or at least you can't prove otherwise. Also, when sociopaths manipulate it is wrong but when other people manipulate to get someone elected with stronger moral character, that is better?

Why despite this being true, blatant appeals to emotion are still so effective.