This may sound like an inflammatory or rant thread, but it’s not at all, actually. It’s a genuine question, but more suited for IMHO than General Questions.
I’m sure there are times when defense attorneys *know *that their client, the defendant, is well and truly guilty of a particular crime. Yet they defend them anyway, and I’m sure there are times when such a defense is successful and their client gets off scot-free.
The stereotype that lawyers have no scruples and are only out for career advancement and money is just that, a skewed stereotype, yet do such defense attorneys feel no guilt or moral second-guessing whatsoever? Getting a guilty person acquitted of shoplifting or vandalism is one thing, but what about cases like getting a cold-blooded murderer (whom the attorney *knows *full well is guilty) off scot-free?
I am not referring to cases in which there is little evidence and in which the guilty client might have been acquitted with or without legal counsel, but rather, cases in which the defense attorney’s skillful, repeated and insistent defense of his client’s “innocence” arguably made the crucial deciding difference.
I am also not referring to lawyers who want to have a sentence reduced or made more lenient for a client - there may be good reasons for that - but for lawyers who want a guilty murderer or such person to get away with the crime entirely, no consequences. Do they have no qualms about it at all?
Anytime I was sure a defendant was guilty, the jury was too. I lost a lot more sleep over the defendants I thought were innocent, as the juries often thought they were guilty too.
The times I did get "guilty"people off, it was typically a drug crime where I won a motion to suppress evidence. No remorse there.
Lawyers do not determine the guilt or innocence of a person in the United States. In this country it is a jury or a judge that makes this determination. The role of the lawyer is to advocate strongly for his or her client. A lawyer is required to follow professional ethical standards; and, in fact, the ethical bar for even obtaining a license is higher than most professions.
A lawyer advocating strongly for their client within the law is not acting unethically. A lawyer is acting unethically when they fail to give a client proper representation; i.e. do not exhibit due diligence and care in advising and advocating for their client. Except in rare instances, attorney client privilege requires lawyers to maintain strict confidentiality, so there is not a good way to determine the existence of what you claim, but the occurrence of such a thing is plausible.
Ultimately, lawyers are certainly not gods, and are not and can not be the possessors of ultimate truth. I don’t think there are many things that exist in reality that are as black and white as you make it out to be. For example, in cases where people were found guilty and later found to be completely innocent based upon DNA evidence 25% involved confessions of guilt.
So, the job of the lawyer is to look at the situation, gather all of the facts, and determine what is in the best interest of the client in regards to the application of the law to the case.
So, at least in terms of US law, I would say NO IMHO.
Good point. Maybe I’m overly cynical, but I suspect that there are a few lawyers who get a thrill out of ruining justice by getting guilty defendants acquitted (just like I suspect there are a few prosecutors who get a kick out of watching innocent people get convicted,) but they’re probably the tiny minority. The vast majority of attorneys are probably ethical and just doing their job.
While in law school and trying to determine what field of law I wanted to practice, this was exactly my dilemma (and subsequently why I chose to go the “civil” route).
That being said, I have a few former classmates who work as defense attorneys and they seem to relish the challenge. When we get together, sometimes they’ll talk about various legal maneuvers they used to get the guilty party set free. That being said, most of who they defend are accused of “victimless” crimes - prostitution, drug use, etc. I don’t think they’d have the same mindset if they were defending people charged with violent offenses.
No.
Next question?
That might be true, but I don’t think that answers the question. The question isn’t, should attorneys feel guilt, but do attorneys feel guilt?
As for folks defending clients from victimless crimes, that, too, is only part of the issue: nobody would expect attorneys to feel guilt in these cases. The real question is about defending someone that you think is guilty of a victimizing crime.
Let’s say it’s the defense attorney for a serial rapist. She discovers that the police illegally obtained the rapist’s recorded videos where he confesses to his crime and the thrill of committing them, and moves successfully to have the evidence suppressed. The state’s case falls apart, and due to this series of events (a sieries in which the attorney played one key role, even if it wasn’t the only key role), the serial rapist is set free. How common is it for a defense attorney to feel guilt over such acts?
There are certainly stories of soldiers who felt guilty about the wars they fought in, even though they also saw themselves as fulfilling their duty. It would surprise me if there are no defense attorneys who face a similar emotional conflict.
The job of a defense attorney is to zealously represent the client. If the client “gets off scot-free,” that means the Commonwealth could not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don’t want to live in a state in which an accused person can be imprisoned even if guilt isn’t shown beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you?
If you agree, then I hope you see why the defense attorney is necessary: he holds the Commonwealth to their burden. Without him, or her, zealously challenging the evidence for each and every element of the offense, there is no guarantee that proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be adduced.
I don’t like the idea of lawbreakers going unpunished. I like even less the idea that a government can imprison a citizen without a high standard of proof being met. And if no one in the system has the job of testing that evidence in an adversarial way, I’m not sanguine about the government’s forbearance.
Bricker, that is almost exactly what a friend of mine said. He is a defense attorney. Another point he made is that if the client is acquitted but actually did the crime, one of two things will happen. Either he will see the error of his ways and never commit any more crimes, or he will err again and the state has another chance to convict and do a better job of convincing a jury.
No, I don’t.
But that doesn’t answer the question.
Look, I feel guilty when I take my toddler to the doctor and she starts crying in terror. Of course I know it’s necessary, but that doesn’t mean I’m perfectly comfortable with the experience.
And that’s absolutely trivial compared to what we’re talking about here.
It’s completely plausible to me that a defense attorney could successfully defend a serial rapist, knowing that he’ll probably rape someone else, and believe she did the right thing–and still lose sleep over feelings of terrible guilt–and still go back to work the next day and do it again.
And that, I think, is what the question is about.
No, I don’t think they should feel guilty as long as they are acting in accordance with their duties as a lawyer.
Whew, man - good counterpoint. I’ll need 20-30 more years of life experience to answer this.
Again, though, the question isn’t whether they SHOULD feel guilt.
He already said they shouldn’t! Quit badgering him!
Should I?
I know the real issue. You want the state to be able to lock people up without a defense! Well, that may be well enough for you, but I wouldn’t want to live in a country like that, thankyouverymuch.
So far Procrustus and Calatin seem to have provided insightful answers to the question Velocity actually asked. Can we get to three meaningful replies? Three? We can do it!
Harelip! Harelip!
We were just having this discussion today. There is no way I could be a defense attorney. I understand the necessity of their role but it is not something I could do. I suspect that those that feel the same practice in a different area of the law rather than continue in defense work.
If that’s the question, then the answer is: yes, undoubtedly there are instances in which a defense attorney feels conflicted over the fact that his vital and necessary role had the result of releasing a person who had committed an act that, had the Commonwealth been able to prove it happened, would be criminal.
But as you point out, that’s an almost trivial inquiry. Parents may feel remorse as they subject their kids to the sharp needles of a doctor’s office for vaccinations and yet are absolutely convinced that the vaccination is necessary. A manager may feel guilt in firing a poorly performing employee and still be absolutely convinced that his act preserves the division’s profitability and ultimately ensures the continued employment of the competent employees. Hell, there are probably prosecutors who feel remorse at their part in convicting a guilty person, knowing they’ll suffer in prison.
An actress may feel remorse about all the other actresses that didn’t get the part she got. A construction foreman may feel bad that the bridge he helped build put the ferry boat out of business.
In short, I suspect in that most fields of human endeavor there arise from time to time some opportunity that triggers remorse while at the same time placates the remorse with the conviction that the aggregate results are positive.
So, if that was the question: I believe the answer is safely described as “Yes.”
But a better analogy, for this thread, would be a boss who fires a good-performing employee (but “has to, for the sake of the system”) or a prosecutor trying to convict someone who is innocent (“but has to, for the sake of the system.”)
This is why I could never defend certain types of clients, were I a defense attorney. Get a serial rapist or serial murderer off by suppression of evidence? I’d fucking kill myself if they did it again.