Did I just time warp into a conversation from 1950 or something? If anything, our system has devolved into becoming more interested in the rights of the poor “victim of society” or “mental illness” or similar don’t-hold-people-accountable brilliance of the criminal than the victims. There are prisoners out there with cable TV and cell phones. Give me a break.
And yes God forbid we should punish people for a crime. Let’s pat them on the head, go “tsk tsk naughty boy!” and “rehabilitate” them. Punish bad behavior? Crazy talk!
:smack: To each their own, I just couldn’t disagree more.
As an up and coming law-talking-guy with no real interest/aptitude for criminal law, I think Spoons covered my sentiments about the defense lawyer pretty well. The courthouse is a dance, where your job is to prove legal innocence, not factual innocence. The Crown’s got a burden to meet, and it’s simply my job to poke holes in that defense.
If I could, I would definitely take the “I don’t want to know” option from a client. Makes you wonder how one goes about defending a Luca Magnotta or Col. Russell Williams, though, when the internet and TV have already told you more than you really wanted to know in the first place…
I voted other, because I think it depends on the case (although my hesitation means I’m probably leaning pretty far to “no”). Child rape could mean an 18 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old, or it could me a dirty old bastard forcing himself on a toddler. I’d have far less moral compunctions about the former versus the latter.
Honestly? I just wonder if I’d have the stomach to go through the trial discovery of a rape, grizzly murder, etc. I assume you have to look at autopsy photos and crime scene evidence, and have the murder described to you in painstaking detail, right? In addition to probably not eating for two weeks, I’d be a little scared of the guy I’m defending, in all honesty!
I just visited the Mob Museum in Las Vegas yesterday and first of all it’s amazing and huge and I didn’t give it the time it deserved, but one of the video presentation was an interview with Max Solomon who was a mob defense attorney. He made a very compelling case for the right of everyone to a competent defense.
I highly recommend the museum to anyone with an interest in law or lawlessness.
If someone is guilty simply because they’ve been caught by the police in the act, why bother with a trial?
If there is no question about guilt, why have a trial?
I don’t know what country you’re posting from, but this is not the role of a defence counsel in the common law systems. The defence counsel does not get to decide whether the accused will plead not guilty or guilty; that is the decision of the accused. And, it’s not a plea of innocence; the accused is innocent at law unless and until the Crown or D.A. proves the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The impact on the victims is not relevant to the accused’s power to choose a plea and the defence counsel’s role.
Again, in the common law systems, it is not the function of the defence counsel to decide what position the accused will take, nor is it the function of the defence counsel to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused.
In the common law system, it is not the function of the defence counsel to assess the case, and defence counsel’s personal view of the accused’s guilt or innocence is not relevant.
So if the police beat a confession out of the accused in this system, so be it. Defence counsel will not try to challenge the confession. The accused should be a man and accept the consequences of having a confession beat out of him??
How would you represent the recent “Batman” mass murderer? He seems to have been sane (bought weapons, planned the attack, dyed hair red). Then he walks into a theater and murders 12, shoots another 52. Was he sane when he did this?
Can’t get a “fair” trial? What’s a “fair trial” in such a case-are there twelve people who haven’t heard of this?
I have a feeling that Holmes’s trial will be turned into a multi-year , expensive fiasco-like OJ Simpson’s.
Amazing that Norway was able to try the man who killed 77 people-swiftly and fairly-while Holmes will be in the news for years, possibly.
I don’t know where you’re live but beating a confession out of the accused is something that does not happen here. We here live in a free country with even overly polite cops. Sometimes a proper beating would probably be in order…
I voted yes, however I was curious if there is some code of ethics that mandates this for all members of the bar. A lawyers version of the Hippocratic Oath.
As I understand it, the defense attorney is there in the courtroom to make damn sure the prosecution has proven its case against the accused, because no one should be convicted on just the say-so of the police or the state. Even scumbags, no, *especially *“obviously” guilty persons, need to be assured of due process.
Sorry, got interrupted. Yes, there are codes of ethics for lawyers that cover issues such as the duty of defence counsel. Defence counsel cannot mislead the court, so if the client has told counsel that he did something, counsel cannot try to disprove that in court. However, counsel can certainly challenge the prosecution’s case in other ways, such as the credibility of witnesses, the accuracy of forensic evidence, and so on. It’s the prosecution’s duty to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and it’s the defence’s duty to challenge the prosecution.
If you’d read my post, I stated that if you want to choose a defense that goes against the professional ethics of the attorney they do have right to turn down the case. This should be obvious as it’s possible in many, many professions.
An earthly paradise - not really, but probably one of the best places when it comes to the judicial system, the government, education and equality. Most of it is the result of a reasonably small population and a high level of education. More than half of the population over 15 years old have a university degree. When you rule out the ones that are really old (not that educated) and the young kids still in school you have a pretty close to 99% university educated people. Oh, and it’s free
I’m sorry, that’s my bad, I was reading quick at work. Still in the States I assume. Their cops have a questionable reputation over here in Europe but I cannot speak from experience since I never got into any trouble over there.
Sure, a defence lawyer cannot take instructions that go against his or her professional obligations; but I did read your post, and you appear to be asserting that in your system, a defence lawyer should refuse to allow his client to oppose the charges if the defence lawyer thinks the case is strong; is that right?
If that is the case in your country, so be it, but it is quite different from the common law systems, where the defence counsel does not have to take into account the views of the victims, nor does the defence counsel have the right to tell the accused he cannot plead “not guilty”, as your post appears to suggest.
Ok, I seem to confuse you here, sorry. The topic was how would you feel about defending (blahblahblah) so I answered with my opinion providing this group of lawyers as an example of how I personally would also act in the case. This is my opinion about how it should be handled, mine only - I see nothing wrong with it and it doesn’t conflict with my personal values. Of course in any capitalist country you can find a lawyer that will try to block out the obvious and attack anything, even minor details in the case. Were I a defense lawyer I would still value my dignity and reputation more than doing that for a few extra bucks (in the cases mentioned in the OP, were it tax fraud or something, I’d go for it probably).
They are not obliged to “take into account the views of the victims” - it’s only humane. Also the accused may plead not guilty if they wish - depending on the case that just might limit the lawyers available for his use as I explained before. There are clear and cut cases that do go to court as they should since we don’t have the bargain system in effect like in some other countries (does that totally skip the court by the way???). So if you admit your guilt and you know you’re going to be sentenced anyway you have to look for the best possible options, most criminals tend to look for a lawyer experienced in similar cases.
Now, I try not to confuse the readers too much, but in that case your best option is one of the lawyers who have a reputation in dealing with those kind of cases. How can you measure success in cases you technically always lose? They normally are able to bring to the attention of the court some details that the prosecution has maybe overlooked or no one has brought them to their attention thus bringing down the jail time. If you can cut off a year or two, it’s normally pretty well done since our punishments are pretty lenient - a premeditated murder sends you in for about 10-14 years, turn it into a manslaughter and you’re out in 4. This is the reason for going with the best lawyers even if they don’t advice you to plead not guilty.
I’m terribly sorry if I’m confusing you, that is not my intention. I hope I did not strike a nerve with you but I’m not trolling here, just an avid court case follower and I’m only speaking from my personal experience here.
Did I just time warp into a conversation from 1950 or something? If anything, our system has devolved into becoming more interested in the rights of the poor “victim of society” or “mental illness” or similar don’t-hold-people-accountable brilliance of the criminal than the victims. There are prisoners out there with cable TV and cell phones. Give me a break.
