??? It's like for the right price some psycho will defend anything
??? It's like for the right price some psycho will defend anything
Those accused of crimes are entitled to a "vigorous defense." Period.
It's the attorney's job and *ethical obligation* to do whatever s/he can do (legally and ethically) in order to secure a "not guilty" verdict. Whether s/he thinks the client is actually guilty is irrelevant, except insofar as it might help shape the lawyer's defensive strategy.
Sometimes we do. I've never asked my client, straight up, although I believe he did tell someone on the case before me that he didn't do it.
There's enough reasonable doubt that he shouldn't have the death penalty at this point, particularly on the aggravating factors.
His original lawyers never hired their own DNA expert to challenge the State's evidence, which is my issue. I want to have an expert examine it to see if there is a plausible other theory of the case, because there are some holes in the story that the State told to convince the jury he did it.
There was another case I worked on where I absolutely knew that the guys were innocent, without a doubt. (I was actually hired as an independent third party to look into it, so they weren't my clients.) They were eventually exonerated.
Ummmm...yeah? wrote:
Those accused of crimes are entitled to a "vigorous defense." Period.
It's the attorney's job and *ethical obligation* to do whatever s/he can do (legally and ethically) in order to secure a "not guilty" verdict. Whether s/he thinks the client is actually guilty is irrelevant, except insofar as it might help shape the lawyer's defensive strategy.
Agreed; good reply. It seems today vengeance, punishment, or rounding up someone is the goal, not justice, that a lot of US citizens want.
However, if it's you or someone close to you who's accused of a major crime, you might not be so blood-thirsty.
Do some reading on how suspect ID and prosecution processes can be flawed, based on human nature and the typical flow of the US justice system. A recommended read: Unfair: The New Science of Criminal Injustice by Adam Benforado.
All people accused of a crime are innocent - so yes they must assume their clients are innocent.
In the case of a likely-guilty client it becomes not about giving the client a defence, but about making the state work to get a prosecution. We need to make the state work every single time so that we don't let the standard of proof slip: this covers everything from the police's handling of crime scene and evidence, to what happens in the court room - making sure judges follow the laws of evidence and procedure etc.
If we fail to do this, and standards do slip, we increase the chances of innocent people being incorrectly found guilty. We make it easier for the government to put innocent people in prison. We end up with journalists and other critics of the state in prison. We move a step closer to the news reports you see out of developing countries, where the incumbent ruler has been able to put his political opponents away on trumped up charges in the lead up to the election.
Our democracy literally depends on it.
Defence clap clap clap wrote:
In the case of a likely-guilty client it becomes not about giving the client a defence, but about making the state work to get a prosecution. We need to make the state work every single time so that we don't let the standard of proof slip: this covers everything from the police's handling of crime scene and evidence, to what happens in the court room - making sure judges follow the laws of evidence and procedure etc.
If we fail to do this, and standards do slip, we increase the chances of innocent people being incorrectly found guilty. We make it easier for the government to put innocent people in prison. We end up with journalists and other critics of the state in prison. We move a step closer to the news reports you see out of developing countries, where the incumbent ruler has been able to put his political opponents away on trumped up charges in the lead up to the election.
Our democracy literally depends on it.
The other thing that a lot of people don't grasp is that "guilty" is a pretty fluid term - someone may be "guilty" of doing something, but is he or she "guilty" of what the government is charging him or her with? The State knows that it's a system of pleas, and so it is often a negotiation no different than any other negotiation. They start by over-charging.
Would you rather see attorneys not provide a vigorous defense to murderers, thus enabling them all to endlessly claim incompetent counsel?
would you rather... wrote:
Would you rather see attorneys not provide a vigorous defense to murderers, thus enabling them all to endlessly claim incompetent counsel?
That's when I step in. :)
love the responses from IndyJ and Defense clap. Great discussions.
Criminal defense lawyers are amoral folks who don't really have a conscience...Right versus wrong escapes them....They rationalize their behavior by saying they are defending the system of justice. They usually know when their client is guilty but don't care...Child rapist...murderer...it doesn't matter to these scum....
So, you want defense attorneys to decide if someone is guilty and totally circumvent the system? I think it is noble to defend the system of justice. Plus, too many innocent people have been found guilty and far too many of them are minorities.
Courtroom mercenaries wrote:
??? It's like for the right price some psycho will defend anything
I don't look at it that way. Providing a vigorous defense of their client ensures that the state does their job when prosecuting. The state is supposed to prove that the accused committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Forcing them to work to reach that standard makes us all safer.
exthrower wrote:
Courtroom mercenaries wrote:??? It's like for the right price some psycho will defend anything
Criminal defense lawyers are amoral folks who don't really have a conscience...Right versus wrong escapes them....They rationalize their behavior by saying they are defending the system of justice. They usually know when their client is guilty but don't care...Child rapist...murderer...it doesn't matter to these scum....
Another muslim wanting Sharia law in this great country. Not going to happen, no matter how many acts of terrorism you advocate. This countries system of justice, it's presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial will not be undone by people like you. It's what makes America great and people like you will not tear it apart.
exthrower wrote:
Courtroom mercenaries wrote:??? It's like for the right price some psycho will defend anything
Criminal defense lawyers are amoral folks who don't really have a conscience...Right versus wrong escapes them....They rationalize their behavior by saying they are defending the system of justice. They usually know when their client is guilty but don't care...Child rapist...murderer...it doesn't matter to these scum....
exthrower and current meathead
I think you guys would be surprised at how many lawyers have worked on both the prosecution and the defense side. There are some "cause" people who have zealously planted their flag in one camp or the other. But, for the most part, I think that these are simply lawyers who have a strong interest in practicing criminal law.
This is the first case where I really hated a defense attorney. Also, despised the forensic expert witnesses for the defense. This probably also started to weaken my anti-death penalty stance. Some defense lawyers justify anything they do by being morally against the death penalty. It still bothers me that I am pro-death penalty, but Timothy McVeigh sealed the deal on that.
Ever since then, I feel like all expert witnesses are potentially morally corrupt whores. The one in this case was despicable.
Ever since then, I feel like all expert witnesses are potentially morally corrupt whores.
Including, I hope you mean, those retained by the prosecution.
The only way to reach a reasonable level of certainty that something is true is to fail to disprove it despite vigorous attempts to do so.
If a scientist wants to know whether new medication is better than the old, they try to prove that it is not. Only when they are unable to do so do they reject the null hypothesis and conclude that the new treatment might, in fact, be better.
Same applies in a court. We can only accept the charge as valid if vigorous defense is provided and fails to disprove the allegation.
IndyJ wrote:
I think you guys would be surprised at how many lawyers have worked on both the prosecution and the defense side. There are some "cause" people who have zealously planted their flag in one camp or the other. But, for the most part, I think that these are simply lawyers who have a strong interest in practicing criminal law.
This is true. The major problem is that people don't truly understand the law and appreciate how important our system of justice is in relation to freedom. The average Joe has watched too much TV and is fine being judge, jury and executioner and have no idea how truly dangerous a notion that is. Even in the US, where we do have this amazing system of justice, innocent people are wrongly convicted all the time.
Idiots focus on the bad and see the examples like OJ where guilty people are seen to go free thanks to their lawyers - but no system is perfect. They also don't see the notion of an innocent going to jail (or being executed) for a crime they didn't commit as being worse than a guilty person getting away with a crime. The vast majority of the time the system it works. Those underlying fundamental principals - like the right to have a trial and a defence are so important and so obviously positive it's difficult to imagine that anyone could be so stupid that they can't see that.
I have plenty of distrust for the prosecution and law enforcement agencies too. So, yes, those expert witnesses, and witnesses from law enforcement, could be corrupt, with or without knowledge, of the actual attorneys involved.