Ask Your Question today
Some lawyers defend pure scum (murderers and rapists for example) when they simply KNOW they are guilty. I don't know how such people sleep at night. Yet, being a lawyer is seen as a respectable profession, because "everyone is entitled to the most aggressive representation" or something like that. I don't get it. What do you think of such lawyers?
But there's always an off chance that they're not scum and we're mistaken.
At least that's how I justify their existence.
"But there's always an off chance that they're not scum and we're mistaken."
Yes, but what about those lawyers who defend people whom they simply KNOW are guilty of the most horrific crimes? (and there are plenty of those I believe).
Shouldn't lawyers care if their clients are guilty or not? I certainly think so, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the reality.
I think some lawyers get paid too much, and I think that everyone should be held equal under the law and the fact that all lawyers are not equal either in quality or cost is problematic for me. I think law is an elitist industry, although not as elitist as politics.
I agree with wigsplitz though, and she says it very well. Lawyers help stop the justice system from running amok, and defendants have to be seen as innocent until proven guilty. I dislike that a rich defendant can splash out on a team of top lawyers and gun down their prosecutor unfairly, but I think that lawyers have a duty to defend their client regardless of whether they "really" committed the offense.
A defense attorney doesn't have to prove innocence, that's not his job. His client IS innocent by law until proven guilty. The prosecution has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defense looks at the evidence against the client and determines if it's admissible, if it was obtained legally, and to oversee the court proceedings ensuring a fair trial.
It's not usually about 'actual' innocence or guilt, it's more about upholding the Constitution and our laws and making sure our courts and police are 'behaving'.
I have to go to a meeting right now so I gotta run but I'll elaborate later on.
"His client IS innocent by law until proven guilty."
Yes, but what about those lawyers who defend people whom they simply KNOW are guilty of the most horrific crimes? (and there are plenty of those I believe).
Shouldn't lawyers care if their clients are guilty or not? I certainly think so, but sadly that doesn't seem to be the reality.
How can one be a defense lawyer and not believe in the justice system?
If we just said 'Fuck it, he seems guilty enough' then our entire system means nothing. Criminal defense protects all of us, the core of it really is upholding our basic rights.
If we allowed the justice system to operate outside of the law even just sometimes, then the system isn't a system anymore and everyone would be subject to awful consequences of that.
You could use the old 'free speech' saying and apply it to this: "I don't like what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" You probably wouldn't advocate suppressing anyone's right to free speech just because they say something unpopular so how can you feel it's OK to ignore or trample someone's rights just because they're accused of a crime? You have to be able to see past the person, the crime, and the content and recognize it's a matter of upholding rights.
Someone's guilt may seem obvious, they may have even confessed, but they still have the right to due process, the State doesn't have the right to commit crimes against the accused, THAT is what the lawyer is defending much of the time. Sometimes what a person is charged with isn't appropriate under the law, some other times a lawyer may not be primarily defending total innocence but arguing for lesser sentencing. For instance, in death penalty cases, the client may be guilty but not 'guilty enough' to receive death.
I can give a quick example of something that happened to my dad. He has a history of DWI. He got yet another one, he WAS guilty of it essentially, he was arrested, found to be intoxicated, confessed, everything was done right, they had a VERY solid case. Except, the Judge presiding over his case became entangled in some sex crime fiasco and wasn't able to hear the case within the prescribed time. My dad got off on the grounds that he was "refused the right to a speedy trial" (6th Amendment to The Constitution). On the surface, it seems like a real shame to most people. His history, the solid case....but, the right to a speedy trial is VERY important to everyone. If you're accused of a crime, you can't be thrown in jail or have an accusation hanging over your head indefinitely. What's more important, that a few people walk free over this or that any and all accused can be imprisoned indefinitely? Allowing this right to be ignored leads down a path to tyranny.
Why s lot of people see lawyers as con artists. Defending someone is not bad. Making money off the suffering of others is the real issue. However the job itself is very one sided. One side convicts at all costs. The other will defend at all cost. So lets say a child is going to jail for child porn since he has pics of his 16 year old girlfriend naked. Even if she sent them and he is only two years older. The prosecution will push to get him registered as a pedophile. This does not seem right. On the other hand a defense lawyer is defending a man who has raped 12 children with tapes evidence and so on he will try and get him out at all costs. This is not right either. The fact is the court system sees things in Black and White. This is simply not how some of these cases work though.
i hate the judicial system and how broken it is. innocent people sent to prison, guilty people are set free, and the justice department fines and incarcerates people for what they do in the comfort of their own home, when they aren't hurting anyone other then possibly themselves. "Oh, you are ruining your life with drugs, let me help ruin your life some more by slapping a felony on your record and some jail time."
so in my opinion, it's a win for me every time a 'guilty' person gets through the cracks, in spite.
I don't think I could put it any better than wigsplitz already did. Your job as a lawyer isn't to judge guilty or not, you're job as a lawyer is to defend every client who comes to you equally. If the court system didn't have these checks and balances many innocent people would be imprisoned. Every try defending yourself? It doesn't work.
I got charged with disorderly conduct for defending myself against a crazy, 300lb bitch of a roomate. Should've had my lawyer with me.