# How does a Lawyer end up defending Scum™ **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 30, 2007, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736 "2007-12-30T21:25:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/101 "2008-01-01T17:08:26Z")
[QUOTE=ralph124c] ..allowing the criminal to go free, you sealed the poor truck driver’s doom! He would be alive, if the scum was found guilty (of the crime he did commit), and remanded to prison. Karma is a bitch! :smack: [/QUOTE] But other than probation, parole, and suspended sentences, we **don’t** allow _the criminal_ to go free. We convict him, execute him, send him to jail or prison, or do one of the non-incarceration sentences if appropriate (and one’s freedom is drastically curtailed on probation or parole; ask **wring** for details on what’s typical). While it might be nice if e were omniscient and convicted all those and only those who are in fact guilty of crimes, we aren’t – and under the law, the guy who walks out of court with a dismissal or acquittal is no more a criminal than you are. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/102 "2008-01-01T17:25:11Z")
I think the term “getting off on a technicality” commonly refers to a case where the accused meets all the substantive elements of a crime, where the evidence is readily available to prove it, but also where the accused is not convicted of that crime due to a procedural defect in the case. Criminal Procedure trumping Criminal Law. Form over substance, even. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/103 "2008-01-01T18:28:31Z")
[QUOTE=Lust4Life] My personal two pennorth is that I believe everyone should be defended in court no matter how heinous the crime that they are accused of but it really bugs me that people who are known to be guilty when all the evidence comes out but get off on a technicality. The accused wasn’t read his Miranda or the police didn’t have a search warrant ,whatever. [/QUOTE] Unbelievable! As others have noted, just because you feel like imposing the label “technicality” on such things does not alter the fact that the requirements for Miranda warnings and search warrants constitute fundamental defenses of our most basic freedoms. If someone who commits a crime manages to escape conviction because the police made an illegal arrest or conducted an illegal search, then the blame for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the agents of the state. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/104 "2008-01-01T18:36:26Z")
[QUOTE=Bearflag70] I think the term “getting off on a technicality” commonly refers to a case where the accused meets all the substantive elements of a crime, where the evidence is readily available to prove it, but also where the accused is not convicted of that crime due to a procedural defect in the case. Criminal Procedure trumping Criminal Law. Form over substance, even. [/QUOTE] I agree that that is what people mean. What I asked for is an example of that happening. You hear it talked about and you see it on TV but you don’t see it in real life. Any “technicality” usually means there is a reason that some evidence is not trustworthy and should not be admitted. Whether it is because it was obtained improperly or some other “technicality”. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/105 "2008-01-01T19:15:33Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] I agree that that is what people mean. What I asked for is an example of that happening. You hear it talked about and you see it on TV but you don’t see it in real life. Any “technicality” usually means there is a reason that some evidence is not trustworthy and should not be admitted. Whether it is because it was obtained improperly or some other “technicality”. [/QUOTE] Here’s an example from real life, from [Scotland in 2001.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1658447.stm) > [@](#): > > A man accused of being a member of the world’s biggest known internet paedophile ring has walked free from court on a technicality. > > Andrew Aspinall, 42, was alleged to have had more than 7,500 pornographic pictures of children on his computer and stored on discs in his home and office. > > He was arrested in September 1998 during a nationwide operation by detectives to break up the notorious Wonderland Club. > > But a sheriff ruled a police search of his home in Livingston, West Lothian, was illegal because they took a civilian worker along to help unplug and remove the equipment. > > Andrew Aspinall > Mr Aspinall has now moved to Leicestershire > > Sheriff Peter Gillam ruled the presence of John Cherry in the police team breached the European Convention on Human Rights because he had not been named in the search warrant. I’m sure an American example could be found without too much trouble. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/106 "2008-01-01T19:33:35Z")
[QUOTE=aldiboronti] Here’s an example from real life, from [Scotland in 2001.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1658447.stm) I’m sure an American example could be found without too much trouble. [/QUOTE] Three things: 1-News preports of “technicalities” are notoriously unreliable. 2-When you find an American example let me know. 3-None of my comments apply to non american law since I don’t know much about it. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/107 "2008-01-01T19:53:00Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] Three things: 1-News preports of “technicalities” are notoriously unreliable. 2-When you find an American example let me know. 3-None of my comments apply to non american law since I don’t know much about it. [/QUOTE] Are you seriously asserting that we don’t have cases in America where, as a result of improper search and/or seizure, or violation of rights under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendments, accused people who would most likely be convicted are found not guilty resulting from application of the various procudural penalties we apply for those violations? Do you really believe that the assault upon _Mapp_ and _Miranda_ which continues to this day by prosecutors and legislators alike is truly “needless” from their viewpoint because all the likely guilty parties get convicted anyway? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/108 "2008-01-01T20:01:55Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Are you seriously asserting that we don’t have cases in America where, as a result of improper search and/or seizure, or violation of rights under either the Fifth or Sixth Amendments, accused people who would most likely be convicted are found not guilty resulting from application of the various procudural penalties we apply for those violations? Do you really believe that the assault upon _Mapp_ and _Miranda_ which continues to this day by prosecutors and legislators alike is truly “needless” from their viewpoint because all the likely guilty parties get convicted anyway? [/QUOTE] No. I am not saying that at all. In fact actually I am saying just the opposite. What I am saying is that I do not consider state violation of procedural rules a “Technicality”. And technically people do not get off on technicalities. There is no rule which if the police violate it the defendant goes free. Sometimes the tainted evidence cannot be used but the state can go forward without the tainted evidence. If the state cannot prove its case then the defendant did not get off on a technicality he was simply not found guilty. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/109 "2008-01-01T20:01:56Z")
[QUOTE=aldiboronti] Here’s an example from real life, from [Scotland in 2001.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1658447.stm) I’m sure an American example could be found without too much trouble. [/QUOTE] Actually, it seems that a key assertion from your article is actually untrue, or at least is not the whole truth, to wit: > [@Your article](#): > > Sheriff Peter Gillam ruled the presence of John Cherry in the police team breached the European Convention on Human Rights because he had not been named in the search warrant. But, as [this article](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20011118/ai_n13963482) notes: > [@](#): > > Within hours, Lothian and Borders police had swung into full damage limitation mode. Their line was clear - this wasn’t a case of police bungling, this was down to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). ECHR was sown into Scottish law in May 1999 and since then has been seen as a politically correct piece of dogma which has eaten away at the power of the police and prosecutors to put bad guys behind bars. Their tactic worked. > > The press and TV news bulletins were full of condemnation of ECHR. Both the Daily Mail and The Scotsman ran the story on their front page directly attacking European interference in the independence of British law. Even the Scottish Tory leader, David McLetchie, himself a former lawyer, said adherence to ECHR had reduced the legal system to chaos. > > **In the cold light of the law these comments were all a little strange - not to say misinformed. For this disaster was nothing to do with ECHR. As the Sunday Herald has discovered, Aspinall would have walked free from court whether or not the convention was part of Scots law or not.** > > \ > > Scots law has always maintained that only those named on a warrant can enter a person’s home. Both Professor Robert Black, Scotland’s most pre-eminent legal scholar, and the renowned lawyer John Scott, who chairs the Scottish Human Rights Centre, are clear that Aspinall would have been freed whether or not ECHR was on the law books. When the Sunday Herald presented the Crown Office with Black and Scott’s analysis of the case, it too admitted that Aspinall would have been freed regardless of ECHR. The police line was rapidly falling apart. > > “This was not the case of a politically correct European law helping an evil man walk free,” said Scott. “It has always been the case in Scots law that if there is a mistake on a warrant the accused will walk free - that’s why the police know not to make mistakes or at least they should know that. The police’s alibi is, ‘It wasn’t us, guv - it was ECHR what done it’, and that just doesn’t stand up. There have been enough cases in the past where warrant mistakes have allowed people to get off charges for the police to know better.” There are very good reasons for having a law that allows only those people mentioned in the search warrant to enter the property. And if this law applies to EVERY SINGLE WARRANT issued in Scotland—as the article says—then the cops had no excuse for fucking this up. From the article: > [@](#): > > As Professor Robert Black says: “The law is the law - whether its for an alleged paedophile or a shoplifter. You can’t just ignore the law simply because you find the crime alleged to be disgusting and abhorrent.” > > The weight of legal precedent was also with Aspinall’s team. Two previous cases - Lawrie v Muir and Singh v HM Advocate - make clear that warrants have to be acted on to the letter, and failure to adhere to the wording of a warrant will result in the loss of a case. These cases state boldly that infringements of the powers of a warrant won’t be condoned by Scottish courts. > > There was little evidence that police were even aware of the wording of the warrant. Reid and Cherry, said Law, hadn’t even read it. “This wasn’t a mere technical defeat,” she said. “The police asked for this warrant on August 31, three days before the raid. There was no urgency - this wasn’t a last minute rush - so there’s no excuse.” As this quote suggests, what the police did constituted “infringements of the powers of a warrant.” In my opinion, that’s not something we want to encourage by looking the other way. In this case, the infringement might seem to be minor, but if warrants are not adhered to properly then they become rather pointless as legal instruments. The worst thing is, there was absolutely no reason to have Cherry with the cops on the raid: > [@](#): > > Almost unbelievably, Cherry was there simply to unplug Aspinall’s computer and put stickers on its sockets so officers would know how to reconnect it when they took it back to the Fettes HQ. Jesus Christ on a Pogo Stick! Couldn’t they have found a cop that knew how to disconnect and reconnect a desktop computer? This isn’t exactly rocket science. Hell, the cop would only have needed to know how to dismantle it; once the computer was actually in the police station, it presumably would not have been a violation of the warrant for Cherry to get it up and running again. The Scottish MP quoted in the article got it right, IMO: > [@](#): > > Last night, Roseanna Cunningham, the SNP’s deputy leader and shadow justice minister, said there should be an immediate investigation into the bungling. “There is no point in blaming ECHR,” she said. “The police have to realise they made mistakes, identify why those mistakes were made and make sure they never happen again.” She dismissed claims by some members of the legal establishment that the sheriff should have taken “public interest” into account and allowed the case to continue as a “dangerous and slippery slope which would bend the rules and erode justice”. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/110 "2008-01-01T20:03:38Z")
[QUOTE=EJsGirl] They aren’t “technicalities”- they are laws. [/QUOTE] Which is not to be confused with justice. Which gives rise the the view of lawyers as the scum of the earth. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/111 "2008-01-01T20:11:16Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Which is not to be confused with justice. Which gives rise the the view of lawyers as the scum of the earth. [/QUOTE] People always say stupid shit like this until they actually need a lawyer themselves. To bad we cannot tatto it on the heads of people who say it so lawyers will see it when they are begging them to save their asses. Not that a good lawyer would give two shits. It would just be funny. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/112 "2008-01-01T20:16:37Z")
Not sorry at all to harp on this, **ralph** … [QUOTE=ralph124c] However, you destroy the evidence… [/QUOTE] But that is NOT what a defense attorney does. I know you’re being figurative, that you mean that the defender “destroys” the validity of the evidence being presented against the accused – but, if the defender is for example bringing up the fact that there was an illegal search, what she is pointing out is that THE AGENTS OF THE STATE (Crown, for Commonwealth Dopers) VOIDED THE EVIDENCE by conducting an illegal search. It’s THEIR fault if criminals can’t be properly convicted. Unless your client directly affirms to you not only that he did it but that he intends to kill again, you bear no responsibility for his future action. Y’know, some of the expressions here seem to carry with them a worrisome presumption that the writer will never have to in any way fear being on the wrong side of a \*botched or fabricated \* criminal investigation, and these sorts of things just happen to Scum and not to Us Fine Upstanding Citizens. Oh, and as for **aldiboronti** ’s example: The "technicality"there was that the police could not bring in some outside civilian to secure the evidence w/o having it be previously so authorized by someone with the authority to do so (simple thing: _“Right, boys, the suspect is a guy with a large scale of filesharing activity - means he may have a fancy computer rig, and the Prosecutor wants whatever’s in it to be secured properly. I’m the first one to admit none of us is much of a tech genius, so, McMillan, make sure you get an authorization to bring along an outside geek to take down his system.”_) . Why so? Oh, maybe because the presence of outsiders can bring into question the chain of custody and the possibility of planted evidence. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/113 "2008-01-01T20:22:14Z")
Think of it like a Football game if the quarterback throws the game winning touchdown pass from in front of the line of scrimmage and the refs call the foul and disallow the touchdown, did the team loose because of a technicality? ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/114 "2008-01-01T20:26:17Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] People always say stupid shit like this until they actually need a lawyer themselves. [/QUOTE] Yep. ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/115 "2008-01-01T20:28:15Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] Which is not to be confused with justice. Which gives rise the the view of lawyers as the scum of the earth. [/QUOTE] I’m sorry- I think you misspelled “legislators” in your post. You know, the people who pass laws… Or were you thinking of “law enforcement?” :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/116 "2008-01-01T20:33:39Z")
[QUOTE=askeptic] People always say stupid shit like this until they actually need a lawyer themselves. To bad we cannot tatto it on the heads of people who say it so lawyers will see it when they are begging them to save their asses. Not that a good lawyer would give two shits. It would just be funny. [/QUOTE] All I did was point out the reality of public perception. But if you’re handing out tattoos it would be equally entertaining if lawyers wore their livelihood on their heads. And I agree, a good lawyer doesn’t give a shit. Which probably adds to the mystique. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/117 "2008-01-01T20:37:22Z")
[QUOTE=EJsGirl] I’m sorry- I think you misspelled “legislators” in your post. You know, the people who pass laws… :rolleyes: [/QUOTE] Interesting that you brought this up. What percentage of legislators do you suppose are lawyers? ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/118 "2008-01-01T20:39:44Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] All I did was point out the reality of public perception. But if you’re handing out tattoos it would be equally entertaining if lawyers wore their livelihood on their heads. And I agree, a good lawyer doesn’t give a shit. Which probably adds to the mystique. [/QUOTE] [Moderating] I do not think that remarks such as this make a positive contribution to the thread. Please refrain from further commentary in this vein. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![Moirai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/96bed5/32.png) [@Moirai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moirai)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/119 "2008-01-01T20:50:01Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] What percentage of legislators do you suppose are lawyers? [/QUOTE] I have no idea. Do you? However, I do know that the vast majority of lawyers are not legislators… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2008, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736/120 "2008-01-01T21:09:28Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] [Moderating] I do not think that remarks such as this make a positive contribution to the thread. Please refrain from further commentary in this vein. Colibri General Questions Moderator [/QUOTE] You’ll have to be more specific. The thread is about lawyers defending scum. I pointed out the reality that law and justice are not the same thing. The bad reputation lawyers get is directly associated with this fact. The question posted is really a 2 parter: how does one get stuck with defending scum and why does one willingly seek out the job. Of the latter there are at least 2 reasons to willingly take the job: to defend someone for humanitarian reasons (nobody wants the job), or the fame/glory/financial gain from a high profile case. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-a-lawyer-end-up-defending-scum/431736.md?page=7)