[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Sublight didn’t really answer the question, though. Providing the best possible defense doesn’t affect sentencing? Then on what basis does the judge determine whether to impose a lenient or maximum sentence, by rolling 8-sided dice?
[/quote]
Well, there are two phases to the process—the trial itself, and then the sentencing phase.
The trial is about determining guilt or innocence. The idea of providing the best possible defense in this scenario is that, for better or worse, the American justice system is an adversarial one, in which the prosecution does its best to prove guilt, and the defense does its best to either prove innocence, or to at least argue that the prosecution has not met the burden of proof for a “beyond reasonable doubt” verdict. The idea is that this adversarial system will, when properly run, result in a just verdict regarding the defendant’s guilt, or otherwise.
Now, there are quite a few people who believe that the adversarial system has fundamental flaws, and that a non-adversarial system can actually lead to better justice. I’ve heard some compelling arguments to that effect, although i’m not enough of a legal scholar to be able to offer a definitive summary of the benefits and drawbacks of each system.
But the fact is that we have an adversarial system, and under such a system it is not the defense attorney’s role to second-guess whether the defendant should or should not be found guilty. It is their job to defend the client vigorously, and with all legal means at their disposal.
Providing the best possible defense gives the defendant the best possible chance of being found “not guilty.” This is the defense attorney’s role. If the defendant is found guilty, then what the defense attorney did during the trial phase need have no effect at all upon sentencing, except to the extent that the defense proffered might have led to guilty verdicts for some charges, and not guilty verdicts for other. For example, if you’re charged with murder and manslaughter, the range of possible sentences if probably going to be different if you’re found guilty of murder than if you’re found guilty of manslaughter.
Once the sentencing phase begins, the defense attorney, in some cases at least, still might have a further duties to perform, such as arguing for a lighter sentencing, perhaps by arguing extenuating circumstances. I’m not sure what proportion of criminal cases where this actually occurs. If the defense attorney does have this job, then obviously his or her arguments might affect sentencing, but again, that’s part of the duty they have as an officer of the court within our judicial system. And if the sentencing phase does not involve the defense attorney making an argument about sentencing, then obviously the judge will consider things like the crime committed, prior criminal history, etc., etc.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
Well, I’m sure that’s a comforting sentiment for a defense attorney to cling to, but it’s difficult to sympathize with someone who thinks: “Man, I really hope this convicted child molester gets the lightest possible sentence, or it’ll reflect poorly on my job performance.”
[/quote]
While it might be convenient for you to paint this as some narrow professional selfishness and careerism, it’s actually a matter of justice, and of professional ethics. Defense attorneys are obliged by the law, and by the canon of ethics of their profession, to mount the most vigorous defense possible.
If their client is found guilty and sentenced to a long prison term, there’s nothing to stop the attorney from feeling “Well, he probably got the sentence he deserved.” I’m sure many defense attorneys feel some moral ambivalence about many of the people they defend. But feeling such moral ambivalence is not incompatible with fulfilling their ethical obligations to the client, and to our system of justice. If they don’t do this, then we can’t really call it a system of justice.
[QUOTE=Terrifel]
So, yeah, I think that defense attorneys ought to feel a certain sense of guilt about things like that. I remember a case some time ago where an accused rapist spontaneously confessed to his attorney, who knowingly allowed his client to take the stand and lie his ass off, and eventually got a verdict of “not guilty.” Was he doing his job? Sure, technically. Should he feel proud of himself for doing such a great job in the service of justice? I don’t think so.
[/QUOTE]
Well, admittedly some of my “knowledge” about the criminal justice system is a product of too many Law and Order episodes, but i’ve always been under the impression that a defense attorney is not allowed to put a defendant on the stand knowing that the defendant is going to lie. If this is, in fact, the case (help me out here, lawyers), it would make your little anecdote completely irrelevant to the issue.
).