Let’s say that you know the guy is a killer and that he deserves the death penalty. Would it be ethical for an attorney to defend him? And suppose this killer told every attorney that he committed the murder and a dozen attorneys have already turned down his case. Now would you defend him?
There is nobody for which I know this to be true, nor do I think that there is any circumstance in which I can know it to be true.
“Known”? That has nothing to do with the accused’s right to a fair trial. We are still obligated to determine whether the state can prove the crime was performed by the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
Otherwise, why have a justice system at all if you are willing to skip due process because *you *“know” that this person is guillty?
That’s exactly it. I used to think defense lawyers in murder trials were scum, but it ain’t so; everyone deserves a fair trial.
you went to law school?
Yes, think of defense attorneys as peer review for prosecutors. If he is so obviously a murderer then the prosecution should have no problems convicting him. An unchecked system of law is a much bigger danger than any single criminal. Take OJ, he killed to people and I would bet that he ruined less lives than the blatantly racist Mark Fuhrman.
If you know he committed the crime because you were a witness, you’re probably in violation of ethics to be involved in either the prosecution or the defense except in your capacity as a witness. If you didn’t witness it, how do you know beyond any doubt that he did it? Just because he said so? Pffft! I’m sure there have been cases of false confessions. Bottom line is that you do not know and cannot know beyond a shadow of a doubt. And he’s entitled to legal representation.
Am I the only one who first saw the thread title as “Is It Ethical To Defend A Klown Killer?”
Every person deserves a fair trial and a vigorous defense. It is the way we determine what it is we know about a crime and that person’s involvement. There’s all sorts of ways to criticize and outright degrade and abuse the legal profession and it’s practioners, however defense attorneys make up for all of that in the end. If you ever get charged with a crime, whether you did it or not, unless you are a moron you will engage a lawyer to defend you, and you’ll realize how important this role is in maintaining anything resembling a justice system.
Point taken, but I think the hypothetical is assuming known guilt. Maybe there are ten witnesses, a clear video of the event and a confession.
To the OP, I think it would help you if you didn’t introduce the death penalty into your debate. It’s unnecessary and will probably turn your thread into a debate about it.
I’m not asking whether attorneys consider it ethical. I’m using the normal definition.
How does a question like this come from a person who claims that they attended Cal at Berkeley for 8 years to become a lawyer?
edited to add: To avoid another 5 pages of misunderstanding, please tell us what you consider the normal definition of “ethical” to be, since youi think it differs from what lawyers think it is?
Of course, there are professional ethics, and it is ethical for a defense attorney who knew his client was guilty to defend him. I’m more interested whether the general public would consider it ethical.
Personally, I would think it’s ethical if the individual did not believe in the death penalty. Otherwise, he should stay away from the case.
There’s no difference in this case, but just so’s you know: there’s no universal code of ethics. So, there’s no “normal” definition of ethics. You HAVE to qualify your ethical code to give a meaningful answer.
Onto the actual topic:
Classic US example - John Adam’s defense of the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.
He volunteered for a duty that no other Boston lawyer would voluntarily accept and one that went against his personal inclinations (he was no fan of British occupation), because he believed every defendant deserved not only a fair trial but an adequate defense. He did this knowing his reputation, career, and potentially his life were at stake from angry citizenry.
Most were acquitted.
I consider that unethical, actually. Even if a defendant ADMITS guilt, the defendant deserves a solid defense and a fair trial. Many of the people who founded this country believed in those principles, and it’s a violation of their beliefs and the justice system they cobbled together to give accused criminals otherwise.
Let’s say the killer was sane. Remember, he told you he was guilty. So, if you defended him, isn’t there a chance that he would get a better deal than he otherwise should have gotten?
Do you, a person who claims to have gone to Cal at Berkeley for eight years and became a lawyer, know what a defense lawyer is?
And what’s the problem with that?
Let’s take it one step further. Say the defendant pleads guilty. The defendant STILL deserves a fair trial and an attorney’s best effort.
The implicit assumption in your post is that YOU are judge and jury. That YOU can and should weigh the evidence and come to your own ideas of an acceptable verdict and acceptable sentencing. That YOU can do this better than a bunch of theoretically emotionally uncompromised people.
Clearly this is not the case, and our system of justice is based partly around it. Otherwise, there’s no need for a jury - a single judge can weigh evidence as well or better than a single defense attorney.
No system of justice is perfect. But the one you propose is worse for reasons we’ve known literally for centuries (see John Adams example above).
I have to admit, this is a bit of a quandary. The concepts here touch on basic high school civics and history.
Say, isn’t the OP the same one who claims to be a lawyer in the Was It All an Accident thread?
EDIT: Ah, I see that’s already been noticed upthread.
Would you be able to give your best effort knowing that he was guilty. And if you couldn’t then wouldn’t it be better if you let another defense attorney handle the case. After all, if all you said about professional ethics were accurate, then there would be other attorneys willing to handle the case.
What the heck are “normal” ethics?
A lawyer cannot knowingly present perjured testimony.
A lawyer can (and should) ethically present a good-faith defense to the particular charges (the defendant is not being tried for being a bad person but rather for a specific criminal act) and make the state prove its case.
If the state can’t prove its case, the defendant should be acquitted or only convicted of whatever lesser charge the state can prove.
If people you think are guilty don’t get a fair trial, no one does.