Scum is defined as anybody whom the issue of their forgivability in/by society is clear - their actions are unforgivable (child-molesters, rapists etc…)
I am sure that no Lawyer wants to be tasked with defending such a person in court, but they do get lawyers, and are entitled to them.
So how does a lawyer get picked for them? Could one pursue a law career in such a way that you never have to defend someone you would not want to defend (or even feel repulsed by)?
sigh . . . Fighting ignorance is so hard . . . I’ll send you some NAMBLA literature.
Easy. Practice in some field other than criminal defense – there are plenty. Or practice in criminal defense as a solo practitioner and you get to pick and choose your clients. Only the public defenders have to take any (indigent) client.
There are people that believe in the legal system, and that everyone deserves a fair trial and the right to an attorney. There will be cases were the “Scum” was wrongly accused of the crime, and they deserve defense.
Right now I cannot remember any of the search terms (or the answers), but I know there have been previous threads about what lawyers do when their clients admit they committed a crime, or if they don’t want to defends someone.
Unlike television law, in real life law, the defendant’s lawyer is not there to prove that someone else did it, or even that her client didn’t do it. She is only there to convince the jury that the prosecutor, the police and the witnesses haven’t done their jobs well. She doesn’t have to prove her client is innocent, they have to prove he’s guilty; all she has to do is convince a jury that they haven’t done that, or that they’ve done things that compromise his rights or the evidence.
So don’t think of it as defending the indefensible. Think of it as casting doubt on the professionalism and capability of other lawyers. Makes it go down easier, somehow.
Some of us just happen to believe in the constitution.
Without somebody willing to defend them even the most vile scum could not be convicted as the constitution requires that they have the assistance of counsel.
Are you talking about people who have previously been convicted of such crimes, and are then charged with something else? I guess you must be, since you wouldn’t simply be assuming that anyone charged with such a crime has actually committed the unforgiveable actions, right? Right?
Surely they’re only scum once convicted? And isn’t the bulk of American law based upon the presumption of innocence?
Alleged scum. They are scum only after conviction.
Imagine living in a country where the government could take all your assets, lock you up, torture you, kill you, and do the same to your family and friends, simply because it dose not like you or what you believe in. There are a lot of places in the world where this happens.
A legal system that ensures that guilt must be proven is key to avoiding such a regime. A full and fair defence is necessary to ensuring that guilt must be proven. A competent defence attorney is usually necessary to a full and fair defence.
So… instead of getting a judge and a jury involved, we need only to ask the defense lawyer if he thinks his client is guilty. If he does, then we don’t need to worry about the rest of the process; the guy’s scum and should be punished.
But wait - what if you’re not comfortable letting the defense lawyer decide the ultimate guilt or innocence of his clients?
The question in the OP presupposes we KNOW, absolutely, that the accused is guilty.
Bu that’s what the process is supposed to uncover.
If we allow the defense attorney to wash his hands of a client who he believes id guilty, then we’ve handed him the ultimate responsibility for fact-finding in the judicial process.
alot of the time its usually a young lawyer with little experience if its not a high profile case. any expereince they can get is benificial. but for the highier profile cases a lawyer might do it to get recongized, i.e. johnny cockran
…
And of course a defence Lawyer may advise Scum (a client) to plead guilty, and then they’ve got a whole nuther job to do after.
If you were ever the alleged scum, you’d want a zealous defense attorney in your corner, too. Everyone rolls their eyes at (supposedly) amoral, cutthroat, unconcerned-with-actual-guilt criminal defense lawyers until they are themselves charged with a crime - and then they want the best possible defense. You are, under our system of justice, presumed innocent until proven guilty. The system is not perfect, and sometimes apparently guilty people get off, but it’s the best system we know how to devise given our desire, as a democracy, to see not only that crime is punished but that the innocent are vindicated, under the rule of law. To paraphrase Churchill, it’s the worst system, except for all the others that have been tried.
scrape though Law School with the minimum passing grades, and find that the Public Defenders office is the only place you can get hired.
Law is a broad profession. Some lawyers never see the inside of a courtroom, while others spend most of their time in court. Some deal primarily with business deals, some deal primarily with family disputes, some deal primarly with criminals, etc. Criminal law is just one of a great many areas in which a lawyer might wish to specialize.
Those who decide to become criminal lawyers usually advertise – just look in the yellow pages. Often they start as employees of the government as public defenders who hang about in court and pick up poor clients who otherwise could not afford a lawyer, or in some areas, they start as private lawyers who represent poor clients but send their bills to the government. As the lawyers get more experience, they may stay doing what they are doing, or if in private practice, they may start attracting cash paying clients as word of their competence spreads. Since most accused are eventually found guilty, a criminal lawyer would never have much of a career if he or she turned away potential clients who were obviously guilty. Clients want lawyers who will move heaven and earth for the best result, not lawyers who brush off tough cases. This holds true for all litigation, not just criminal litigation.
(As an aside, depending on the juristiction, the juge may have the power to simply point to whatever lawyer happens to be in the courtroom and tell that lawyer to represent an accused who does not have a lawyer. In that role, the lawyer, who is an officer of the court, acts as a friend of the court to ensure that the accused does not get screwed over by the system. Usually all it comes to is the lawyer (without being paid – the lawyer gets shanghaied by the judge) speaking with the accused, adjourning the matter, and tracking down a defence attorney who is willing to take on the client. )
As far as directing one’s career away from criminal litigation, many lawyers start in a general practice, working at an entry level in quite a few areas of law, before moving on to specialization. For lawyers intending to eventually specialize in litigation of one sort or another, experience early on in the criminal courts can be very useful, for the one thing about low level criminal work is that it has you on your feet speaking to the court on a daily basis, and it has you interacting with challenging clients on a daily basis. That is why even although most lawyers are not criminal lawyers, a great many of them will have had a bit of criminal law experience early on in their careers, so that they will have developed stong courtroom skills for when they have to argue in court in whatever their speciality may be. (That’s the route I took – although I have not done much in the way of criminal work for years, the courtroom experience early on has resulted in my now getting a lot of courtroom work from other lawyers – very similar to how barristers in the UK receive courtoom work from solicitors, only here in Ontario, the lawyers are both barristers and solicitors.)
In my experience, public defenders are very skillful and are better at their jobs, in general, than lawyers who only occasionally do criminal defense work. Public Defender offices can be pretty choosy as to who they hire - many young lawyers would like to get the kind of courtroom experience they offer. From all I’ve seen, I wouldn’t suggest that PDOs are dumping grounds for lawyers who can’t get a job anywhere else.
And then do a good job at it and get appointed to be a judge, like two gentlemen in my acquaintance.
Husband has worked both sides of the criminal law fence- prosecution and defense. He was a juvenile prosecutor in one of the worst jurisdictions in CA and saw plenty of horrible stuff.
As a criminal defense attorney, he was able to choose the cases he took. While he firmly believes that all accused are entitled to the best possible defense, they are not all necessarily entitled to HIS defense. He draws the line at crimes against children- sexual crimes, kidnapping, murder. Anyone else with a flush bank account is welcome to inquire.
Any stats to support this?