# Is It Ethical To Defend A Known Killer. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2013, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815 "2013-01-30T14:39:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/21 "2013-01-30T16:10:05Z")
> [@huck](#): > > If people you think are guilty don’t get a fair trial, no one does. I’m not arguing about whether they should get a fair trial. I’m just saying that because you have ethical qualms and may not be able to do your best. Then wouldn’t it be better if another attorney did the job. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/22 "2013-01-30T16:11:31Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > 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. You’re missing the point. You are again making an implicit assumption that somebody _deserves_ a particular verdict and sentence. THAT’S NOT FOR YOU TO DECIDE!!! If you don’t get that idea, you shouldn’t be an attorney. Professional ethics? It’s not ethical as a lawyer to make a determination of guilt or non-guilt for their clients at all. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/23 "2013-01-30T16:13:54Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > I’m not arguing about whether they should get a fair trial. I’m just saying that because you have ethical qualms and may not be able to do your best. Then wouldn’t it be better if another attorney did the job. Certainly. Why didn’t you ask that in the first place? Are you really a lawyer? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/24 "2013-01-30T16:18:58Z")
We get this sort of thing every now and then. “Why do we bother giving obviously guilty people a fair trial? Only innocent people deserve a fair trial.” The problem of course is determining which people are innocent, and therefore deserve a fair trial, and which are guilty and don’t deserve a fair trial. And so, before we gave the defendant a fair trial, we’d have to have some sort of impartial tribunal to determine whether the person is innocent, and therefore we should continue with the fair trial, or whether the person is guilty, and the trial should be dispensed with. Of course, if the tribunal discovers that the person is innocent, it doesn’t make much sense to continue with the trial afterwards, does it? So if we decide the person is innocent they should just let him go afterwards. We could call the tribunal that discovers whether the defendant is guilty or innocent “A fair trial”. ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/25 "2013-01-30T16:19:16Z")
> [@huck](#): > > Certainly. Why didn’t you ask that in the first place? > > Are you really a lawyer? Let’s forget that I’ve ever mentioned that. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/26 "2013-01-30T16:20:17Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Then wouldn’t it be better if another attorney did the job. It’s readily apparent you have no idea what ethical or professional obligations an attorney has. It is a major violation of professional ethics to (1) presume the guilt of your client at all - even if they plead that way and (2) to presume to know a fair sentence if they are found guilty. Having ethical qualms because a defendant _MIGHT_ not be found guilty is a big, glowing neon sign you are not fit to be a defense attorney at all. Having ethical qualms because a defendant _MIGHT_ not get the sentence you believe is warranted is a big, glowing neon sign you are not fit to be a defense attorney at all. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/27 "2013-01-30T16:24:39Z")
> [@pchaos](#): > > Let’s forget that I’ve ever mentioned that. No. Your claimed background is pertinent to this conversation…unless you would like to publicly retract your claim. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/28 "2013-01-30T16:30:42Z")
I would have grave reservations retaining an attourney who might include Divine Revelation as part of the discovery process. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/29 "2013-01-30T16:31:08Z")
So we know that the defendent killed someone and that is indisputable. Was it self-defense? Was it justifiable legally? Was it justifiable morally (e.g. the guy had brutally raped his daughter)? Was it a fuzzy area re: castle/stand your ground? And that doesn’t even account for penalty differences between 1st and 2nd degree, murder during a felony, etc. ---
**Author:** ![huck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@huck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/huck)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/30 "2013-01-30T16:31:38Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > It’s readily apparent you have no idea what ethical or professional obligations an attorney has. > > It is a major violation of professional ethics to (1) presume the guilt of your client at all - even if they plead that way and (2) to presume to know a fair sentence if they are found guilty. > > Having ethical qualms because a defendant _MIGHT_ not be found guilty is a big, glowing neon sign you are not fit to be a defense attorney at all. > > Having ethical qualms because a defendant _MIGHT_ not get the sentence you believe is warranted is a big, glowing neon sign you are not fit to be a defense attorney at all. I wouldn’t go that far. Lawyers have feelings too. It’s important to be objective and let the system do its job, but I think one aspect of being a good and ethical lawyer is to recognize when emotions or personal convictions get in the way, and have the courage to step back and let someone else do the job if there’s a chance your feelings will compromise your representation. I’ve turned down cases (I’m a civil trial lawyer)that had legal merit but for one reason or another I thought the client was better off elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Reno\_Nevada](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Reno\_Nevada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reno_Nevada)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/31 "2013-01-30T16:40:17Z")
\*Deserves \*death? Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/32 "2013-01-30T16:48:38Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > We get this sort of thing every now and then. “Why do we bother giving obviously guilty people a fair trial? Only innocent people deserve a fair trial.” > > The problem of course is determining which people are innocent, and therefore deserve a fair trial, and which are guilty and don’t deserve a fair trial. And so, before we gave the defendant a fair trial, we’d have to have some sort of impartial tribunal to determine whether the person is innocent, and therefore we should continue with the fair trial, or whether the person is guilty, and the trial should be dispensed with. > > Of course, if the tribunal discovers that the person is innocent, it doesn’t make much sense to continue with the trial afterwards, does it? So if we decide the person is innocent they should just let him go afterwards. > > We could call the tribunal that discovers whether the defendant is guilty or innocent “A fair trial”. Even more importantly, defending the “obviously” guilty is imperative to keep the government and law enforcement in check - following the rules. If you, as the attorney, “know” (as in have evidence of beyond a comment) that the accused is ‘factually guilty’ will cause you to present your case ‘differently’ - wether or not you CHOOSE to work with that client is a call only you can decide - and if you do choose to work with - you had better give that client 120% and not "thow him to the wolves’ or YOU are the one with the ethical problem, I do not care what “the public” thinks in this case - the protections are too critical to everyone even when a “miscarriage of justice” seems to be in play. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/33 "2013-01-30T16:49:43Z")
> [@huck](#): > > I wouldn’t go that far. Lawyers have feelings too. It’s important to be objective and let the system do its job, but I think one aspect of being a good and ethical lawyer is to recognize when emotions or personal convictions get in the way, and have the courage to step back and let someone else do the job if there’s a chance your feelings will compromise your representation. > > I’ve turned down cases (I’m a civil trial lawyer)that had legal merit but for one reason or another I thought the client was better off elsewhere. or what huck just said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/34 "2013-01-30T16:59:25Z")
We, as a society, have made certain determinations about what’s important. For example, we have placed our right to be free of searches and seizures, except those founded upon probable cause or other well-delineated exceptions, to be of greater importance than any given criminal act. So let’s imagine the video which unambiguously establishes guilt is one that was obtained by an illegal action on the part of police – a camera inside the accused’s home, for instance, placed without a warrant. Now we can say with some confidence that the defense attorney KNOWS his client is guilty of the murder. Still, he is absolutely in the right to argue that the video evidence be suppressed. In doing so, he is simply advancing society’s interest in remaining free from unreasonable search and seizure. The fact that he also aids a guilty man in escaping criminal liability is a secondary effect. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/35 "2013-01-30T17:05:18Z")
> [@huck](#): > > Are you really a lawyer? > [@pchaos](#): > > Let’s forget that I’ve ever mentioned that. Yeah, right. That’s like saying whatever you do, do NOT think about pink elephants. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/36 "2013-01-30T17:05:27Z")
Besides the other reasons mentioned, going around and confessing to everyone can easily be a sign of mental illness or that he’s lying to protect someone else; not guilt. > [@DCnDC](#): > > Am I the only one who first saw the thread title as “Is It Ethical To Defend A Klown Killer?” Actually it would be legally treason to do so, given that they are [invading aliens](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_Klowns_from_Outer_Space). 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/37 "2013-01-30T17:12:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now we can say with some confidence that the defense attorney KNOWS his client is guilty of the murder. Still, he is absolutely in the right to argue that the video evidence be suppressed. In doing so, he is simply advancing society’s interest in remaining free from unreasonable search and seizure. The fact that he also aids a guilty man in escaping criminal liability is a secondary effect. Exactly. Even the guilty have legally protected rights, and there is no duty to throw themselves on the mercy of the court. A proper defense ensures that he gets the punishment he deserves _under the law_, and no more. ---
**Author:** ![llcoolbj77](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/eb9ed0/32.png) [@llcoolbj77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/llcoolbj77)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/38 "2013-01-30T18:10:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Now we can say with some confidence that the defense attorney KNOWS his client is guilty of the murder. Still, he is absolutely in the right to argue that the video evidence be suppressed. In doing so, he is simply advancing society’s interest in remaining free from unreasonable search and seizure. The fact that he also aids a guilty man in escaping criminal liability is a secondary effect. This. And if you cannot do this, you should not be a criminal defense attorney. I am a public defender, so I do not have the luxury of turning clients away (or pricing them out, as some private attorneys do when they don’t want a case). Attorneys have an incredible amount of power to affect an outcome when they advise their clients. Even they tone of voice you use when describing options can sway a client one way or the other. Not everyone is cut out for this line of work. If at any time I realize I am advising a client to plead guilty because, personally, in my heart of hearts, I think they probably did it (not because it benefits them in some other significant way, like, sentencing guidelines, etc…), then it is time to quit. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/39 "2013-01-30T18:34:47Z")
Given that neither prosecutors nor defense attornies usually “know” guilt or innocence … do the same criteria follow on the other side? Is a prosecutor unethical for vigorously (but fairly) prosecuting a case they suspect is not guilty or feel does not deserve the full weight of the law thrown at them, or unethical if they took it upon themslevs to make that assessment rather than trying their hardest and letting the court decide? ---
**Author:** ![pchaos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/258eb7/32.png) [@pchaos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pchaos)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815/40 "2013-01-30T18:55:53Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Given that neither prosecutors nor defense attornies usually “know” guilt or innocence … do the same criteria follow on the other side? Is a prosecutor unethical for vigorously (but fairly) prosecuting a case they suspect is not guilty or feel does not deserve the full weight of the law thrown at them, or unethical if they took it upon themslevs to make that assessment rather than trying their hardest and letting the court decide? In San Jose, that problem turned up a couple of times. The prosecutor said the defense attorneys did not ask for the exculpating evidence. As a result the evidence wasn’t turned over and the defendant was found guilty. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-ethical-to-defend-a-known-killer/648815.md?page=3)