Shu and I were having a discussion. I think that prosecutors and defense attorneys should be paid the same, but prosecutors make a lot more. Shu, being a lawyer, explained the reason to me, though I was still a little skeptical. Still, it made sense. So I said, "I could agree with that." But I didn't say, "I agree with that."

That made me think. Do you consider "I could agree with that" just a little weaker than "I agree with that."?

"I could agree with that"

Yes, it's a bit weaker than "I agree with that". For me, that is.

quote:

Do you consider "I could agree with that" just a little weaker than "I agree with that."?

Of course. It's weaker because it's a conditional phrase and a fairly weak conditional phrase at that.

"I agree with that" means I agree. No ifs, no buts, no dispute.

"I could agree with that" means I might agree with it if the fancy takes me - but there's no reason why I have to agree; it's up to me.

"I should agree" means that I might not agree but there are reasons why it would be wrong to disagree. However, it is still ultimately my choice as to whether or not to agree.

quote:

but prosecutors make a lot more.

since you opened up this other case of worms, that really depends, doesn't it. certainly public defenders aren't copiously recompensed, but OTOH O.J.'s lawyers (to pick a notorious case) earned vastly more than the asst. DA who prosecuted.

Yeah but. Look at some of the poor who get some defense attorney who was at the bottom of his class in Nothing Law School who falls asleep during the trial. Compare that with the better-paid prosecutor who tries to make a name for himself winning. To me this is one of the reasons we see more minorities and poor in jail. They just don't get the same kind of defense as the middle or upper class (like OJ) does.

I agree about OJ, but those prosecutors were a little stupid, too, for all the money they spent prosecuting OJ. Law 101, according to all the lawyers I know, is that you don't ask a question that you don't know the answer to...thus the "Can you put this glove on?" question. "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!" What fools those prosecutors were. Frankly, they deserved to lose.

However, turn it around. What about the prosecutor who is looking for fame. We had one. He was looking to run for the governor (Jim Thompson) in Illinois so he spent millions prosecuting a govornor (Kerner) to make a name for himself. Thompson won and eventually became our governor, based on his fame of putting the previous governor in prison. There are many more examples like that in Illinois.

As for the original question, the funny part was that I hadn't really meant a "weak" response when I said "I could agree with that." When I thought about it later, I realized, probably I didn't really agree with that, and that's why I said it that way. I think it's actually a polite response when you don't agree.