Unfortunately, by my heading I seem to have distracted people from the actual violence. It sickens me that such people can now try and say they (the ones involved) were denied justice.
So you think only gang rapists shouldn’t be allowed to appeal sentances?
If you tell me that you never said that they shouldn’t be allowed to appeal, then I’ll ask you why you’re pitting his legal team for doing just that.
While I think it’s a stretch for this guy’s lawyer to say that the victim suffered no lasting harm, I don’t really see a problem with what these lawyers did in this case. They’re just making a request- the judge is free to reject it. Now, if the judge bought it and reduced his sentence, then I would be pissed.
That said, I get sick of lawyers who apparently believe that a “vigorous defense” involves any means necessary. Maybe all the lawyers on the Dope are paragons of virtue- I certainly hope so- but if they are they are in a vast minority of lawyers. I deal with lawyers and go to court every day, and almost all lawyers that I know will do anything it takes: lie, put perjured testimony on the stand, manipulate behind the scenes, anything. I see this happen every day so don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. There are two, maybe three lawyers that I work with that I trust.
Also, the lawyers I work with don’t seem to realize that what his client thinks is in his best interest is not always actually in his best interest, but they pursue what the client wants because they are paying the bill. I’ll give you an example. I recently had a guy put on probation for his fifth DUI. He also had several other alcohol related offenses in addition to the five DUIs. One of his conditions of probation was that he have a substance abuse assessment, and follow all the recommendations of that assessment. He went to a treatment agency for an assessment, and lied his ass off to the counselor. He told the counselor he had never been arrested before, and only drank a few times a year. The counselor, based on his report, recommended an 8 hour education class, which the guy took. When I got the paperwork from the counseling agency, I told the guy I would not approve it and he would have to have another assessment, and that I would not approve any assessment where he was not totally honest. The guy’s attorney took me to court, arguing that the guy had satisfied the probation terms in that he had an assessment and followed the recommendations, and that the probation rules said nothing about being honest with the counselor. He also put me on the stand and grilled me for half an hour about stupid bullshit for no other reason than to make himself look good to the defendant’s parents who were paying his exorbitant fees. In the end he lost the case, as he knew he would before he took the guy’s money, because the court order states that every condition of probation is subject to my approval, and I did not approve.
I talked to the attorney about it afterwards, and he gave me the same tired bullshit line about providing a vigorous defense. But was he looking out for his client’s best interest? Clearly not. His client needs intensive alcohol treatment, without which he will certainly get arrested again if he’s lucky, and end up killing himself and others if he’s not lucky. Clearly his client’s best interest would be for him to get counseling, yet the attorney is in court, fighting to let him skate out of it. To an attorney, that is providing a vigorous defense. To me, he is harming his client, if for no other reason than that he is feeding the client’s delusions that he doesn’t need any help. The client went to him with a story about how his asshole probation officer was jerking him around and making him do this counseling he didn’t want to do, and the attorney fed right into it by agreeing with him and taking me to court. The attorney, if he really wanted to help his client, should have told him to take the counseling seriously and get some help, instead, he validated the client’s delusional belief that he didn’t need any help, and confirmed the client’s belief that I was some asshole who was out to get him, instead of someone who was trying to help him. Why did the attorney do this? Did he really think that he was serving his client’s best interests? Or was it just for the $1500 he charged the guy’s parents?
This is one example, but I deal with something similar to this probably once or twice every week.
You said what I wanted to say.
Eriker? Friker? Wricker? Yricker? Ok, I’m stumped.
Except for the facts that
- the lawyer is not permitted to substitute his own judgment for the client’s;
- it is the CLIENT’s case and ultimate decision;
- you have no idea what went on in the attorney’s meetings with his client; and
- you are attempting to substitute your own judgment for the client’s;
you’re spot-on.
Excellent analysis.
I don’t see anyone here arguing against Constitutionally protected right to legal representation, defense, or appeal.
What I see is more than a few people disgusted with unethical, dishonest, and immoral attempts to set the convicted free or mitigate the convicted’s sentence for no good reason. While the judicial system is certainly in place to deny or accept requests based on legally sound reasons, asking the court to reduce a convicted rapist’s sentence because his victim did not suffer any harm is beyond the pale. A vigorous defense should not contain outright lies or distortions or a complete denial of culpability and consequence. Any lawyer who thinks denying the harm done by such a vicious crime (that did happen and for which the defendent was found guilty) is a legitimate tactic in an ethical defense should be disbarred.
I’ll say that again:
Any lawyer who thinks denying the harm done by such a vicious crime is a legitimate tactic in an ethical defense should be disbarred.
Period.
End of story.
Fortunately, not.
Thank goodness you don’t have any power.
Bullshit. Lawyers do it all the time with respect to defense tactics. For example, I see them constantly talking defendants out of testifying on their own behalf.
That’s my job, dipshit. The client’s judgment has gotten him five DUIs and a bunch of Public Intoxication charges. His judgment is clearly not working out for him. So the judge decided that we’re going to try my judgment out for a couple of years and see how that goes.
Try sticking to topics you know something about.
Erm…hasn’t the question of guilt/innocence already been decided? This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, and has everything to do with the fact that you seriously just fucking said that it’s appropriate for a lawyer representing a rapist (no "alleged"s here!) to argue that no real harm is done to rape victims.
I hope you feel as slimy as that sounds. This is you, and your profession, exposed for what you are. You are not pursuing some grand ideal. You can not claim any moral high ground here. Your code of ethics is carefully designed to allow you to act without regard for morality. You are not a human being, but rather a machine that can spit out legal justification for doing despicable things.
I think the poor petal has been on the receiving end of some Australian prison justice.
WARNING: NSFW
How’s the weather over there in Fantasyland?
Here in the real world, nothing is an absolute. It isn’t the defense lawyer’s job to protect the victim. It’s his job to protect his client.
It’s the judge’s job to decide whether or not his reasoning is sound.
I’ll have something to add to the debate when I’m done laughing my ass off at this.
If this is genuinely how you feel, you may wish to relocate to a country based on legal principles more closely related to your personal ethical code.
I hear they still have stonings in a couple places.
I gotta agree with Don’t Call Me Shirley on this one.
Part of what you and I hire an attorney for is their expertise. The attorney should be competent enough to provide legal advice to the client, without letting the client run off down a dead end. The attorney is* supposed* to use their judgement; just like I’m supposed to use my engineering judgement.
I know that some clients are going to “insist” that it be done their way. I think I’d be inclined to show that client the door. It would be just like a client of mine insisting on ignoring my advice. The attorney in the case mentioned by Don’t failed to help his client when he did not insist that the client follow a wiser path in litigation (or by avoiding litigation entirely).
Talking someone into doing something is not the same as doing something directly opposed to what the client wants. I’m pretty sure lawyers get in trouble for doing that… :rolleyes:
You can’t “show that client the door” in the middle of the sentencing phase in a criminal trial.
Lawyers do it all the time, sure. But if the client says, "No, I want my strategy to be X, the lawyer can’t force them to go for strategy Y.
It’s not your job as far as legal tactics go, dipshit, Or were you having trouble following along?
You mean like being a lawyer? Because that just so happens to be what I am.
You can’t do that. Withdrawing is a damn difficult process to begin with and would be extraordinarily unlikely to be tolerated at sentencing.
Trying to talk your client into or out of some action you believe to be against their best interests is a big, big part of zealous advocacy. You know for certain the lawyers you know aren’t trying their damnedest to get their frequent-flyer DUI offenders to go to treatment? You’re sure of that, are you? Because you were present at meetings between those lawyers and their clients? Because you’re in a position to have privileged communications revealed to you? No? Then maybe you might wanna tone down the rhetoric some, Francis.
Ultimately, all any ethical attorney can do is present all the legal options to his or her client along with an explanation and analysis of each one and the possible outcomes of each course of action. Then the client gets to choose how to proceed. I often wonder where people get the notion that the lawyer is somehow controlling the manner in which any given case proceeds. Professional ethics demand that attorneys leave substantive decisions up to the client. You can try to persuade them that certain courses of action are better for them or more likely to get them a positive outcome or less disturbing to people’s sense of fairness as in the OP’s example, but you are never allowed to substitute your own judgement for theirs. In fact, please note that if a client is clinically persistently mentally unable to form judgement of their own, they can’t be tried at all. That’s what the language people her on TV “unable to assist in their own defense” is all about. A lawyer isn’t required to like his or her client’s decisions, but he or she must abide by them.
Have you passed the bar then? At least three of the contributors to this thread are lawyers.