24 Oct 05
Originally posted by mokkoThose people defend innocent people too Mokko. Many are public defenders and they don't get to pick and choose their clients.
With my current situation involving lawyers of all different types I feel it's sickening that a person would stand up and promote dishonesty and lies before a court of law just for money when the person they're representing is guilty and has caused a great deal of pain to others. I often wonder how these people sleep at night knowing they have contributed to ...[text shortened]... in of many victums. I could never in good conscience ever argue the innocence of a guilty party.
Many people are simply to poor to afford legislation. They have to have some type of representation in court. If we can't provide a decent defense for the poor in the US then what kind of country would we be?
We've acquitted many innocent people here in Virginia since they started DNA testing of convicts. I don't know the actual numbers, but I'm sure they're online somewhere. It's surprising. It's also not the kind of thing our judicial system or correctional system likes to make public.
24 Oct 05
When good lawyers represent the guilty, the law takes precedence over mob rule. Such lawyers are true patriots.
However, to the question. I would find it terribly difficult to represent a known murderer after one close to me had been murdered. But, if the attorney in your story came home to find his wife brutally murdered, I would first investigate the cops who lost a case he had defended. To continue to force such cops to reckon with the law may be enough motivation to continue as before.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by wibI'm refering mainly to those who are aware of guilt. I do realize the need to protect the innocent but I have been present in conversations with lawyers who got drug dealers of on a technicality or an assult charge of on lack of suffient proof. They know full well the client is guilty yet defend their rights to be a part of society. I could never justify such actions in order for a paycheck.
Those people defend innocent people too Mokko. Many are public defenders and they don't get to pick and choose their clients.
Many people are simply to poor to afford legislation. They have to have some type of representation in court. If we can't provide a decent defense for the poor in the US then what kind of country would we be?
We've acquitted ...[text shortened]... t's also not the kind of thing our judicial system or correctional system likes to make public.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by mokkoI know. Believe me I know. I have a very hard time accepting that also. I guess I see it as part of the price we pay for having a judicial system that makes certain we don't incarcerate the innocent. Or at least we try our best not to.
I'm refering mainly to those who are aware of guilt. I do realize the need to protect the innocent but I have been present in conversations with lawyers who got drug dealers of on a technicality or an assult charge of on lack of suffient proof. They know full well the client is guilty yet defend their rights to be a part of society. I could never justify such actions in order for a paycheck.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by wibBut the problem I have with that is most people who get caught up in the judicial system are more times than not reoffenders with a history of troubles with the law. Not some Joe Blow law abinding citizen that winds up in the wrong place at the wrong time too often. These are generally well known persons within the system who continually get bailed out of suffering consequences for their actions by some crooked individual who just happens to be good at his job.
I know. Believe me I know. I have a very hard time accepting that also. I guess I see it as part of the price we pay for having a judicial system that makes certain we don't incarcerate the innocent. Or at least we try our best not to.
I have seen first hand what a mockery the llegal sytem can be. A person can lie under oath and deny all actions in a court of law and nobody makes an effort to put forth the evidence that exists to prove otherwise. It's a very frustrating and oft times painfull ordeal.
It's not about justice in any sense of the word. It's about this lawyer owes this other lawyer a favour and the judge is simply a mediator between little children making school yard deals. Lawyers should be morally inclined to confess the guilt of a client if such information is brought foreward by the accused.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by WulebgrWhen good lawyers represent the guilty, the law takes precedence over mob rule.
When good lawyers represent the guilty, the law takes precedence over mob rule. Such lawyers are true patriots.
However, to the question. I would find it terribly difficult to represent a known murderer after one close to me had been murdered. But, if the attorney in your story came home to find his wife brutally murdered, I would first investigate the co ...[text shortened]... ntinue to force such cops to reckon with the law may be enough motivation to continue as before.
Many of them are mob related.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by DelmerThis is absolutely not the case. The closest two situations are that ethically an attorney is prohibited from advising his client to give false testimony, and if the client does give testimony that the attorney knows to be false, he is ethically bound to make this known to the court.
Where is No.1 when we need him? I certainly could be wrong but it's in my mind that a defense lawyer who actually has proof that his client is guilty of a felony is required by law to make that evidence available to the judge.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThat is accurate, though personally if my client wanted to give testimony that I thought was false I'd try to dissaude him (after all if he can't convince his lawyer, he's not going to be able to convince a judge and/or jury), but if that's what he wanted to do it's his life. There is, of course, no way of knowing for sure the veracity of someone's else testimony regarding events they have direct knowledge of and you do not. Most of the posts here show a bias against lawyers but little knowledge of the role of council in an adversarial system.
This is absolutely not the case. The closest two situations are that ethically an attorney is prohibited from advising his client to give false testimony, and if the client does give testimony that the attorney knows to be false, he is ethically bound to make this known to the court.
24 Oct 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're right I have very little knowledge of the role of council other than to win their case at all costs. I also don't know the role of council when it is known that an accused is guilty and yet they still have to fight to have them acquited (sp?). How can this bring any sense of justice to the person having to defend a guilty party?
Most of the posts here show a bias against lawyers but little knowledge of the role of council in an adversarial system.
Edit:
Other than lining their own bank accounts with money.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by mokkoAnd how would a lawyer "know" his client was guilty?? You do know that "guilty" is a legal determination made by a factfinder who views ALL relevant evidence. 3rd parties commonly assert that such and such was obviously "guilty" when they have not looked at the evidence in any type of rigorous manner. With no trial there is no "justice" unless the accused admits his guilt. How would you decide that someone is sooooooooo "guilty" that they don't deserve a trial with competent legal representation?
You're right I have very little knowledge of the role of council other than to win their case at all costs. I also don't know the role of council when it is known that an accused is guilty and yet they still have to fight to have them acquited (sp?). How can this bring any sense of justice to the person having to defend a guilty party?
Edit:
Other than lining their own bank accounts with money.
If you think that criminal defense lawyers are in for the money, you are sadly misinformed; it's about the lowest paid type of legal work (one can make far more money helping rich guys and corporations evade their taxes).
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNot in every situation do they admit guilt but there are many cases in which quilt is admitted or the crime was caught red handed. It's these situations to which I'm refering and many of these exact situations I have seen fought, argued and been let off within the court sytems. I'm not talking about a client to denies full tilt it was not him. I'm talking the accused with long track records and caught by police commiting a crime and the lawyer who has to defend his non existing innocence. Don't say it never happens because it does all the time. I have been spending way to much time in court rooms lately and have to say from what I've witnessed it's not about justice in any sense of the word. I feel for a majority of the lawyers in these cases as there hands are usually tied and bound in rules, regulations and codes of conduct as well. It is by far a perfect sytem of the guilty being punished and the innocent walking free.
And how would a lawyer "know" his client was guilty?? You do know that "guilty" is a legal determination made by a factfinder who views ALL relevant evidence. 3rd parties commonly assert that such and such was obviously "guilty" when they have not looked at the evidence in any type of rigorous manner. With no trial there is no "justice" unless th ...[text shortened]... f legal work (one can make far more money helping rich guys and corporations evade their taxes).
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by mokkoYou don't know what you're talking about. Even a defendant who admits guilt may actually be innocent; during the time of the Boston Strangler Case hundreds of people "confessed" to the police that they were the Strangler. And there are numerous proven cases where police perjured themselves or planted evidence. Your personal feelings aside, if someone wants to plead guilty they can but other than that a real trial with ALL the legally competent evidence is required before anyone is guilty.
Not in every situation do they admit guilt but there are many cases in which quilt is admitted or the crime was caught red handed. It's these situations to which I'm refering and many of these exact situations I have seen fought, argued and been let off within the court sytems. I'm not talking about a client to denies full tilt it was not him. I'm talking ...[text shortened]... s well. It is by far a perfect sytem of the guilty being punished and the innocent walking free.
Personally, I'm quite happy to perform my part to protect the rights of all in the criminal justice system. If people like you don't want to do it, that's fine with me.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by no1marauderCouldn't do it. I think you're completely misunderstanding my whole view on the topic. I'm not speaking in generalizations but more of specific cases. Ones I know of personally not of cases on a larger scale. My own. opinions from my own personal experience as limited as it may be
You don't know what you're talking about. Even a defendant who admits guilt may actually be innocent; during the time of the Boston Strangler Case hundreds of people "confessed" to the police that they were the Strangler. And there are numerous proven cases where police perjured themselves or planted evidence. Your personal feelings aside, if someone ...[text shortened]... l in the criminal justice system. If people like you don't want to do it, that's fine with me.
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by no1marauderLet's say there is a bank robbery and one of the men charged asks you to defend him and gives you a substantial retainer in cash. He doesn't seem to be a man who would have that kind of cash so you check the serial numbers and find out the bills match some of those stolen from the bank. At that point what is your legal obligation, if any?
And how would a lawyer "know" his client was guilty?? You do know that "guilty" is a legal determination made by a factfinder who views ALL relevant evidence. 3rd parties commonly assert that such and such was obviously "guilty" when they have not looked at the evidence in any type of rigorous manner. With no trial there is no "justice" unless th ...[text shortened]... f legal work (one can make far more money helping rich guys and corporations evade their taxes).
What is your ethical obligation, if any, to the New York Bar Association?
24 Oct 05
Originally posted by steve645I could NOT defenbd anyone as a defense attorney if he told me that he actually did the crime. I might try for a plea bargain, depending on the offender. Is he a one-time F%&k-up, or does he have a PhD in Crminology from the University of Larceny? As for serial killers, child molestors/killers, I would not represent them and try to get them off on a "technicality". For this reason, among others, defense lawyers are looked upon as lower than whale shit in my opinion. I'm sure there are some good ones, but they are the exception rather than the rule; that goes for liberal judges who let criminals walk at their discretion, too, especially the ones on the 9th Circuit Supreme Court in California....I wouldn't let any of them lick my toilet.....Florida has some turds for judges too, as evident by the recent rash of child killings by repeat offenders...
A defense lawyer in our country excels at representing murderers in high profile cases. He is a good lawyer and a good man. Recently, he returned home to find his wife the victim of a homicide.
Could you go on representing murderers; finding faults in the case to get an acquittal when you know they did it, after being victimized yourself?
What are your thoughts on this? I could not do it.