INTJ/ISTJ Paralegal

[meylis]

I'm an INTJ/ISTJ and I've been in similar situation for the past 3 years; couldn't decide what I really wanted to study. Because I like to know everything; from science to economics, from history to computing. So my mother went to a famous psychic who has managed to predict a lot of things which has happened to me. Although, I'm the least religious person than any person I have met, I decided to trust her when she said I should study law. I've changed my academic plan to Paralegal Studies last week and I am satidfied with the decision...finally!

p.s What about this: do you see yourself having your own law firm?

[peppersasen]

ISTJs are probably better suited for the public sector lawyers (criminal lawyers, prosecutors) who play by the rules--textbook lawyering. While INTJs are good for the private sector: more cunning and 'creative', if you know what I mean. :devilish:

At the same time I also think that INTJs are good for litigation and dispute resolution (only IF they posses the interpersonal skills required for it), while ISTJs would probably be good at contracts.

Both make great researchers and fact-finders, but would probably process the information they gather differently (with INTJs being more 'suspicious' about what they see). They would also be different kinds of judges (I don't know if they'd be as extreme as "good cop, bad cop"). Not sure who would make better legislators, though.

I could not deal with arguing a case for someone who doesn't deserve to be proven innocent.

I understand it's difficult for most, but the presumption of innocence is a very important principle. And the right to fair trial is a very, VERY basic right.

[Nikonman]

I could not deal with arguing a case for someone who doesn't deserve to be proven innocent.

Under the US criminal justice system, headlines regarding a criminal defendant being found "innocent" are incorrect. No one is found to be innocent. They are either found to have been guilty or not proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It absolutely is not a finding of innocence. Some may think the distinction is not worth mentioning, but I believe it is. Our system, in theory, prefers to let a guilty person go free than imprison an innocent person. I agree with that approach, although it doesn't always work out as intended (innocent people do get convicted). This is also why someone like OJ Simpson can be found liable in civil court after the criminal system found him not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil system has a different burden of proof for the plaintiff than the prosecution has in a criminal trial.

So if you do criminal defense work, you aren't truly arguing to prove innocence, you're arguing that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of proving your client guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm sure some criminal defense attorneys see themselves as a vital part of the system working as intended. They are there to make sure the prosecution meets its burden of proof before imprisoning someone charged with a crime.