Tell that to the folks who write the criminal laws and the sentencing guidelines, not me.
Uh, no you get charged with rape, but thanks for jumping to the conclusion that I don’t know the difference between rape and assault (given the above it’s not clear that you get it). I really appreciate it! :rolleyes:
You might want to go back and really read what I wrote.
Yes, of course. Obviously. Yes.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the specific characteristics of an offense change how those guilty of that offense are sentenced.
The criminal law,
the sentencing guidelines,
remembering that we sentence under a “[del]mandatory[/del] advisory minimum” rubric.
You can see exactly what kind of sentence would be give for rape, 2241, and what the various adjustments to the final sentence could be, here.
I’m paraphrasing a bit here, but Jefferson once said something to the effect that “it’s better that 100 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished.”
The generalized disdain for defense attorneys is something completely foreign and perhaps a bit beyond my visceral understanding. I get loathing particular attorneys, but generalized contempt is so … so un-American. As has been mentioned upthread, Katie et al are protecting our taken-for-granted freedoms by making sure the prosecutors do their job within the bounds of established law and justice. Matt’s sincere question—how do you do it, not why—points to the service and toll the profession can demand.
Here’s as close as I can get to understanding the mindset—I’d appreciate it if someone could let me know if I’m on track. Say a defense attorney based a motion/argument on something like but your honor, my client should be let out early because after all, the victim was black…, or …the victim was asking for it…, or …she probably enjoyed it…, …but she was gay…, …but she was a Jewess… etc. You get the point. There’d be a general and just uproar and excoriation of said attorney.
Now, I get that I’m using extreme examples, but somewhere between those and honest, post-conviction mitigating circumstances is a whole spectrum between universally contemptible and innocuous. Do you generally see the line of what is a morally permissible argument as being very close to the clearly acceptable end, and therefore, since as a class, defense attorneys are so much more often on the ‘wrong’ side of the line as to lump them in as evil? In this particular case, is “but she wasn’t (physically) harmed” in the same category as above? Is it equally baffling to you that people don’t the as being equally vile?
(Oh, please forgive my rather jingoistic use of “un-American.” Insert the country of your choice.)
I’m not so sure that this is accurate. The easiest counter-example I can think of is the Kobe Bryant rape case. The various pre-trial evidenciary battles before the defense team managed to scare the alleged victim into refusing to get on the stand were building for a defense of “she was just a slut, so she couldn’t possible have been raped.” I won’t say that there was no uproar, nor excoriation of the attorney team. But it was drowned out by the a lot of other voices. It certainly wasn’t universal, nor even general, I don’t think.
Oh, sorry, you’re right. Perhaps I was thinking more along the lines of the board’s reaction. I think, though, that a defense attorney threatening to put the victim on the stand, to depose all her friends and relatives with the express intent to intimidate is/should be considered ethically wrong. I think this is reflected in the model rules of evidence, which has some strong guidelines against bringing up past actions in court.
To elaborate upon this a bit: Jefferson was right because, while it’s rare for a single criminal (or even many criminals) to seriously threaten a country’s freedom and stability, it’s easy for a corrupt or broken justice system to destroy a country’s freedom. For example - I live in Washington, DC. We have a lot of murders, and that’s a truly terrible thing. However - and I don’t mean to minimize the suffering of victims, families, friends, and so on - life for the general public goes on. I wake up, go to work, vote as I please, associate with whom I please, and so on.
However, let’s say the government decided to adopt some really draconian measures to curtail the violence - say, establishing checkpoints in high-crime neighborhoods, and only allowing people to drive through if they had a purpose that was on the “approved” list for that checkpoint. Sort of like this one: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1238,q,565197,mpdcNav_GID,1541.asp
Now, all of a sudden, personal tragedies are being converted into public tragedies, in the name of crime-prevention. Suddenly, people are less free to travel as they wish, attend political protests or lectures that can’t be “verified” by police, and so on - and this is the basic stuff of democracy, folks. A people who can’t travel or speak as they wish can’t act as an effective check on their government - and this principle applies to any overzealous law-enforcement activity. People who live in fear of arrest, searches, and so on tend not to be active citizens, engaged in the political process. And the way we prevent overzealousness is - well, with all due respect to Huck, we keep law enforcement in check with courts. And appeals. And all the balances that ensure our police and courts protect us from criminals, but we are also protected from abuses of that power.
We should probably do away with that “make it fair for the negroes” business too. It’d be much easier to quash the gay agenda if they didn’t have that pesky Civil Rights Act to point to in their arguments.
Well, maybe they think the crime shouldn’t be one? I (IANAL but I work with quite a few) could happily defend a dude who was guilty as hell of some personal pot use, as I think our pot laws are stupid and outdated. Some lawyer fought the Texas anti-sodamy law all the way to SCOTUS, even though his cleint was undoubtedly having gay sex. Would you not agree that lawyer did the right thing, even though his client was guilty as charged?
I know some defence lawyers. If their client is really guilty of a crime we’d all say is a real crime, then in general what they try to do is make a deal, not get them completely off. Generally, if they are forced into a trial it’s because the DA- possibly sensing some political benefit- refuses to make a deal.
When I was doing it for a living, here’s what I thought: the Commonwealth has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, using evidence that was obtained legally. I’m not standing up for my guy’s right to rob a house or sell heroin – I’m standing up for my guy’s right to not get jailed if the Commonwealth can’t prove, with legal evidence, what it’s accusing him of. I’m not doing it FOR my guy; I’m doing it for the system that protects everyone.
This is a bullshit argument. Inflicting serious physical harm/scarring is a separate offense for which consecutive sentences could be imposed.
The discussion here about lawyers lying has centered entirely on the courtroom, when actually most lawyers do most of their work outside the courtroom. So when a lawyer calls me on the phone, as they do every day, and lies to me or tries to manipulate me, is that a violation of their ethics?
That advice has nothing to do with avoiding sleepless nights. The reason for it is for your lawyer to avoid having to quit in the middle of your case when he or she finds you lying to the court. Your lawyer must not knowing mislead the court, so if your lawyer knows that your are misleading the court, the lawyer has to drop out of your case. If you keep your dirty little crimes to yourself, then your lawyer will not know if you are misleading the court, and will be able to continue on as your lawyer. In short, don’t expect your lawyer to help you in your lying to the court.
