No, because C does not yet know about Joe shooting his mouth off to his friends and the cops and the NYT about how he did it. And if C didn’t know that, then s/he probably didn’t know about how Joe confessed to a grand jury afterwards. Of course, if C did know that and said s/he wasn’t sure, just because Joe suddenly remembered that, no, now that he thinks about it, he did not hit Billy and that he just watched and laughed, then yes, C would be defending Joe . . . and showing himself to be a bit of a gullible idiot, IMHO.
Okay, so:
If I say “X didn’t do it” when it is certain beyond reasonable doubt that X did it, then I am defending X.
And if I say “X didn’t do it” when it is not certain beyond a reasonable doubt that X did it, then I am not defending X.
So do you mean that defense lawyers are not defending their clients?
-FrL-
(I will not be able to reply again probably until tomorrow.)
First statement: Yes, you’re defending X.
I don’t know how you get your second statement. It doesn’t logically follow from either the first or anything I said.
And you’re not Ms. Atkins’ defense lawyer.
Sorry, I read what I posted, and I see where you’re getting the second statement:
OK, you got me on this. My bad. My new answer is that yes, C would be defending Joe, but with justification. It would be a justified defense, though, until he learned of the confessions and the Great Mouth Shoot-off of 1969 or whenever. After he learns of this, any defense would not be justified. It would be idiotic for C to defend Joe knowing what he knows about Joe’s behavior after the incident. And I do mean idiotic.
I agree with two things in this thread:
There is no defense for this slaughter.
There is no punishment harsh enough for those who commited it.
Those two things add up to one conclusion: Susan Atkins should spend the rest of her life in prison, and she should be grateful that she is not already dead instead of whining about “poor me.” It’s unfair? How unfair is butchering innocent people and putting an entire city into a summer of fear.
I swear, there are folks who would vote to release Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers if they weren’t already dead.
A-men!
For the life of me, I don’t understand this. I can understand–and agree with–calls to improve prison conditions. Again, I agree with the concepts of rehabilitation and parole. I can understand a prisoner going through all sorts of legal and logical hoops to get him-or-herself released.
I cannot understand the mindset of ordinary taxpayers who want to see Susan Atkins or other mass murderers released, especially when they resort to the same legal and logical contortions. I cannot understand the mindset of an otherwise perfectly rational person trying to argue that maybe Atkins didn’t do what she confessed and bragged about doing before realizing the consequences of her actions and trying to repudiate.
What is going through their heads? 