Do lawyers defending people accused of mur-diddly-urder actually believe their clients are innocent?

exthrower wrote:

JoP wrote:

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.

See what I mean?

Wow, if people thought like you we'd have a tyrannical government in no time.

Part of the value that a criminal defense attorney provides to our society is they hold the government responsible. In part, they ensure the government follows the rule of law when investigating and prosecuting crime. I.e. without effective criminal defense, what stops the govt from violating constitutional rights of suspects? What stops them from extracting confessions under torture? What stops them from making illegal searches and seizures?

With good criminal defense, the govt is heavily incentivized to follow the rules and this helps to protect all of our constitutional rights, innocent or guilty.

IndyJ wrote:

Omnivore wrote:

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.

OK, I assumed that's what you meant, that you generally distrust expert witnesses. (Probably in civil cases, as well.)

Definitely any type of civil case too. Hired guns by competing interests.

Not a lawyer, but always been interested in the law, I regularly read a few blogs run by defense lawyers.

This is the best I've ever seen it explained.

Omnivore wrote:

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.

I'm confused. I always assumed it was a good thing that defense attorneys will try anything they can to defend their client. They are obligated ethically to use the system to it's fullest extent.

Also how does Timothy McVeigh justify the death penalty any more than anyone else?

OJ wasn't found not guilty due to great attorney's, it was due to jury nullification (racism).

If you think what they did was great then you must think there were some great attorneys practicing in the south in the 1930s-70's.

ataglance wrote:

OJ wasn't found not guilty due to great attorney's, it was due to jury nullification (racism).

If you think what they did was great then you must think there were some great attorneys practicing in the south in the 1930s-70's.

Jury nullification is an important tool for maintaining democracy. Shame it gets twisted at times.

I think murder should ONLY be referred to this way. All judges should have to say "You have been convicted of mur-diddly-urder in the First Degree!" etc..

or maybe a detective saying to his collegue, "Yeah, this is no accident, this is mur-diddly-urder."

Harambe wrote:

Omnivore wrote:

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.

I'm confused. I always assumed it was a good thing that defense attorneys will try anything they can to defend their client. They are obligated ethically to use the system to it's fullest extent.

Also how does Timothy McVeigh justify the death penalty any more than anyone else?

I hated that attorney none the less. Maybe there should be some cases where any and all persons on this planet would refuse to defend the perpetrator, or at least refuse to promote the most absurd alternative facts in defense. Not saying it makes legal sense.

McVeigh just coincidentally figured in the progression of my death sentence philosophical position. That's all. I became less sympathetic.

ataglance wrote:

OJ wasn't found not guilty due to great attorney's, it was due to jury nullification (racism).

If you think what they did was great then you must think there were some great attorneys practicing in the south in the 1930s-70's.

I hope you are not a lawyer, but rather just some idiot incapable of reading. Here's the quote for you:

"Idiots focus on the bad and see the examples like OJ where guilty people are seen to go free thanks to their lawyers"

I didn't say OJ went free because of his lawyers - just that idiots see that and believe he went free because of his defence lawyers. Which is what this thread is about, the misapprehension of justice.

Also, nowhere did I say what his lawyers did for him was great, rather I focused on how it is the system of justice that is important, and that includes the right to a defence.

Well, you are probably too stupid to understand all this, but, lucky for you, no matter how dumb you are, if you get charged with a criminal offence, you will have a right to an attorney to represent you.

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....

Are you really this f**king stupid or is this just an act?

I liked it as well, but would point out that we live in a republic.

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.

No. I am a lawyer and I can tell you that you are an idiot. You have been brainwashed. You sound like you are parroting some bs from law school. When will you learn to think for yourself?

Teddike wrote:

I am a lawyer and I can tell you that you are an idiot. You have been brainwashed. You sound like you are parroting some bs from law school. When will you learn to think for yourself?

Is this all you could bring to the discussion? If you're really a lawyer you've actually proved that there's incompetent scum among them.

What most of you should really do is reflect on why it's so important to you that a murder here or there is dealt with exactly how you want.

I Gar-on-tee you there's dozens, probably hundreds of murders right now that aren't only unsolved but unreported. The murderer is right now watching TV and having a sandwich and will probably get away with it. At best it will be a missing-person case forever. Are you losing sleep over that? Do you even pay attention if the missing shows up on your milk carton?

Certain people just get fixated on murder trials like a deer in a headlight, and can't help themselves. They project it into their lives and become personally and emotionally invested in the outcome, even though it will have little to no effect on them.

recognizer of pompous morans wrote:

Teddike wrote:

I am a lawyer and I can tell you that you are an idiot. You have been brainwashed. You sound like you are parroting some bs from law school. When will you learn to think for yourself?

Is this all you could bring to the discussion? If you're really a lawyer you've actually proved that there's incompetent scum among them.

I have not proven anything, and for you to posit that I have demonstrates how vacuous your mind is. One may parrot drivel regarding the assertion that everyone deserves an advocate, but the more intelligent know it is a game with rather arbitrary rules which depend on sheep like you for their foundation. Does everyone deserve a world class advocate? Apparently not.

In truth, the defense lawyer almost never really knows whether the defendant is guilty of a charged crime. Just because the defendant says he did it doesn't make it so. ... For these reasons, among others, defense lawyers often do not ask their clients if they committed the crime.

Sorry somehow missed this thread, but I want to add something, too. I think that it is their job to find out if their clients are innocent first. However, there may be some exceptions, like for the right price someone will defend anything. I have never witnessed something like this yet, because I work only with professionalists as https://kk-attorneys.com/ . I know that they will never do that because they know when their clients are innocent and when they're not. You can read more on their site, if you need their help.

Vazinbon wrote:

Sorry somehow missed this thread, but I want to add something, too. I think that it is their job to find out if their clients are innocent first. However, there may be some exceptions, like for the right price someone will defend anything. I have never witnessed something like this yet, because I work only with professionalists as

https://kk-attorneys.com/

. I know that they will never do that because they know when their clients are innocent and when they're not. You can read more on their site, if you need their help.

Thanks for the information.

Posters on this thread three years ago seem to believe criminal defense attorneys are dirty.

Do some criminal defense attorneys feel it is more likely than not that their clients detained and arrested are guilty? Yes. That is why over 90% of cases end with plea bargain and do not go to trial.

Let's look on the other side of the isle. How many cases are a result of cops being dirty or lazy? How often have prosecutors sat on exculpatory evidence? Evidence at a minimum that would raise reasonable doubt, evidence that may allow a criminal defendant to walk out of the gate a free man or free woman.

Dirty prosecutors are rarely caught. Elizabeth Lederer and Amy Klobuchar both have been caught prosecuting innocent Blacks &/or Latins.

Too often the general public do not care when prosecutors prosecute innocent Black &/or Latin citizens.