Would you defend the guilty?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Zebra asked the question [post=6431932]You know, some people wonder how a lawyer can defend a rapist in court.[/post] (well, he made a statement about the question at least)…

… and rather than hijack that thread in the Pitt, I decided to bring it to IMHO for discussion. (I considered GD but frankly I’m intimidated by the posters there and thought it likely to devolve into opinions more than fact anyway.)

The timing of Zebra’s post is perfect as I was intending to find someway to bring this up with the Dopers anway given this past weekend. It doesn’t involve the defence of a rapist, but is close enough in my book…

I just met a relative of my step-mom who is the best DUI Defense Lawyer in his state (not the one I live in). I was told that most DUI lawyers would charge around $5K to take a case, while he charges $15K as his starting fee and goes upward from there. His success rate is around 85% getting his clients off (90% of the time on a technicality). His rates are insanely steep but a rich businessman looking at his third conviction for DUI (and all the penalties that go with it), will pay anything to get off the hook.

Before meeting him, my opinion of such lawyers is that they are money grubbing scum, could care less about justice and doing the right thing, and like the power and prestiege of rubbing elbows with the rich elite…

Now that I’ve met him, my entire opinion has gone out the window.

He really cares about peoples rights. He does what he does to uphold the Constitution and follow the laws of the USA. Every time a police officer does not follow procedure, arrests someone and questions them without reading them their rights, searches a vehicle illegally, etc. It all chips away at our freedom and our rights as protected by the Constitution. His job is just making sure the police do their job correctly and don’t over step their bounds. … the fact that he can make a lot of money doing that is just a bonus…

As he said (paraphrased somewhat) 'We the people have made laws governing our police and court system to ensure they are fair to all people. I just make sure they follow that law. If people think the system should work a different way, they should work to change the laws.)

… so as I said, my opinion went out the window… but I have yet to form a new opinion…

The idea that someone can drive drunk and get off because an overworked police officer made a mistake when filling out the paperwork, or (to address Zebra’s question) that a rapist could also walk free for the same stupid reason, just makes me angry at the injustice.

But it also helps knowing that the officers of the law, are not above the law themselves, and that someone is watching our for [del]my[/del] our rights.

I don’t know what I think now, so I’m hoping you’ll share your opinions and help me form my new one.

2

I personally would not defend the guilty. Right is right, and wrong is wrong - if they did wrong, the police missing a small bit of procedure doesn’t cancel out the wrong that they did.

I do see your lawyer’s point about working within the system, though. I don’t have any easy answers for the problems inherent in the system, and the way some people (read “rich/powerful”) can work it for their own benefit.

3

I would and have defended persons who were later convicted of the crimes they were accused of. Both the innocent and the guilty have rights. Even guilty people have the right to representation and to have the charges against them proven. It is the prosecution and the police’s job to properly investigate and present a case.

Note that if I know that an accused is guilty, that is if I witnessed elements of the crime or if my client told me they were guilty, I might have an obligation to disclose those facts to the court.

4

I think it is necessary for a lawyer to do their best on behalf of their client no matter whether they think the client is guilty or innocent. For even if the client admits guilt to the lawyer, the lawyer cannot know that the client is telling the truth. But doing their best does not include missleading or lieing to the court, nor relying on loopholes within the law that would enable justice to be avoided. So if a breath test was carried out inaccurately that would be fine to base a case upon, but something like the misspelling of a name or date of birth should not be used to try and wriggle out of a charge against a client.

5

Well, all people who are well heeled enough to make said lawyer rich. Interesting how it works out that way. He’s not picking out persons who were especially wronged by the police, only those who can write huge checks to him.

6

Of course he wants to get paid; people have to pay for law school somehow.

That said, in 2002 over half of Oklahoma attorneys “spent three or more hours a week on professional legal volunteer work, 70 percent of state attorneys spent three or more hours a week on civic, community, charitable work.” There’s nothing special about Oklahoma (except that I live here); that’s pretty commonplace.

I know I don’t spend three hours a week giving away my professional expertise. How about you?

Corr

7

Being technical, they are not guilt until they have been found so by a court of law. Saying you have done something does not make you guilty of anything. It is only a crime if the due process of law says it is. Morally or ethically is of course another question.

8

I’m not a lawyer. Some things lawyers do really bother me.

Still, having social order based on laws that apply to everyone seems to work reasonably well. Nobody else has come up with a better system as far as I can tell.

Having laws that seem equitable and tuned to the values of society also works. And laws that try to accomodate all the quirks, personal beliefs, and whatever of a huge, heterogeneous society is also good.

OK, so you got laws. One of the assumptions is that someone who doesn’t follow the law has to be punished. For that to be equitable, we have to ensure that they really did break the law. Which means, of course, that we have to put them through a trial.

To have trials and laws work, we have to defend everyone. The alternative is to refuse to defend the guilty, which is basically trying someone by personal opinion. Even if it works 99% of the time, it’s not a lasting and equitable way to enforce laws. It gives too much power to too few people.

I believe in right and wrong, and I’m a lot less “morally relative” than the average American. But, if I had to, I would work hard to defend someone in a court of law even if I knew that person was guilty.

Because, basically, I can’t see any other way of guaranteeing liberty and safety to everyone.

9

This particular individual is portraying his work in getting drunk drivers out of trouble as protecting our liberty. He “cares” about people’s rights and does what he does to “uphold” the Constitution. However his personal choice about who he defends has nothing to do with their rights, only their pocketbooks. Tell me this guy actually defends people who were wronged by the police, without regard to their wealth, and I’ll change my mind. With the information given, I say he IS the money grubber with no morals, he just talks a good game in defending his choice, not really a surprise, that’s what he’s good at.

I don’t have a problem with a lawyer defending the guilty, they deserve a vigorous defense just like everyone else. Just don’t sugarcoat it and pretend you’re our saviors. If you choose to defend rich drunk drivers, that’s ducky, knock yourself out, but don’t tell me that I should thank you for doing it.

10

One of the best criminal defense attorneys I ever knew explained it to me this way: “I am a law-enforcement officer. It’s my job to make sure the prosecution obeys the law if they’re going to send this guy to jail. If they can’t do it without obeying the law, our system says the defendant goes free.”

11

I personally would have no moral qualms about defending the guilty. The defense attorney is not there to help the guilty escape justice, but to keep The System[sup]TM[/sup] honest. To make sure the innocent can get a fair trial the guilty need defense as well.

12

I get what you’re saying, but I still would not defend someone who was guilty of the crime they were accused of. Yes, you can know if someone is guilty before the trial, and no, I would not make a good lawyer.

Labdab, you raise an interesting point. I get that the prosecution has to obey the law to prosecute, but I think maybe there should be some gradations between “fully innocent” and “fully guilty” in cases where the accused was caught as red-handed as you can be, and gets off on a technicality. He did the crime; everyone knows he did the crime; he was caught doing the crime, but he walks free because of a technicality? Not acceptable.

13

What Earthworm Jim said. But it’s never a black & white issue. Even the most repugnant criminal must be treated within the bounds of our system of justice. I’m not an attorney and certainly would never want to be a criminal lawyer.

IMHO defending a person is not synonymous with supporting their actions. Could I defend a rapist if I knew he was guilty? While I personally condemn his actions, I could act as representative to try to ensure fair and just treatment. Work hard find and to get him acquitted on an arcane technicality? No. The prosecuting authorities must be diligent and meticulous in their work or the system falls apart. I sat on one jury where we acquitted the defendant who I felt was probably guilty because we all felt that the prosecution had not proved its case. They left a big hole filled with reasonable doubt.

It’s not a perfect system, but it’s a damn good one.

14

Let me explain myself.

I made that post in a thread about a innocent man that was held in prison for 19 years for a rape he didn’t commit. He was arrested and prosecuted for the crime and after many struggles with the DA’s office, they finally admitted that they convicted the wrong guy and let him out.

I threw out my comment as many people were calling the prosecutor a bad guy who just goes for convictions. The comment was to point out an attitude that I think is wrong.
Every person on trial deserves a good defense lawyer.
I don’t mind when someone is let go on a ‘technicality’ because it usually means an illegal search or forced confession and the ‘state’ should not be allowed to do such things. Defense attorneys are defending not only a person but also everybody’s rights.

15

I hate the phrase “let go on a technicality.” A court of law is not a basketball game, and there are no “technicals.” If you actually look behind the “technicality” that someone was let go on, it’s usually an abuse of power by the state.

I absolutely would defend someone I believed to be guilty, if I were a criminal lawyer. (It doesn’t come up much in my patent law practice.) Labdad nailed this one.

16

That explains it about as well as I could hope to.

Most people think it’s hard defending the guilty, but it’s actually the factually innocent people that it’s hard to defend. With a guilty person, they’re probably going to get what’s coming to them, and all you can do is make sure it’s done within the bounds of the law. When it finally happens, you feel bad for them, but they made their own bed. But an innocent person, yeesh. If you don’t get them off completely, you feel terrible.

17

I think that everyone deserves a strong defence, whether they turn out to be guilty or not guilty. And i think that defence lawyers get far too much grief for doing a job that is an integral part of the justice system. As i said on this topic in another recent thread:

That said, in this particular instance i have a considerable amount of sympathy for Cheesesteak’s argument. If the lawyer in question wants to spend his time getting rich people off, then he has every right to do that. But if the only clients he takes are those that can front $15,000, i’m afraid i’ll take some of his self-righteousness with a pinch of salt.

18

Christ, werewolf is entitled to legal counsel.

Hell yes.

19

Unless I were not given a choice because I was a public defender (I understand you take the cases assigned you), I couldn’t defend someone I knew was guilty. I realize everybody is entitled to a proper defense, but I’m not a lawyer at heart. I wouldn’t find the process satisfying the way some lawyers do. Often, they enjoy being part of a properly working legal system even when they’re defending some who’s guilty. Not truly being a lawyer, I could not and would not be able to properly defend someone I knew to be guilty.

If I weren’t sure they were guilty I could then defend them. Also, if I believed that they were being accused of a crime with which I did not agree, like breaking some ridiculous anti-sodomy law, I could defend them then.

20

There are three more things to consider: the constitution, common sense, and the common law.

When you talk about getting off on a technicality, you’re actually talking about getting off because the government violated someone’s constitutional rights in some fashion – by torturing/pressuring a confession from someone, for example, or denying the accused counsel, or entering his home without a warrant.

“So what?” you may say. “He did the crime; we all know he did the crime; why not just convict him?”

Under the common law, every time a case is decided by applying a constitutional principle, the facts of that case add to the legal system’s understanding of how that constitutional principle applies. If we ignore the constitutional prohibition, say, on illegal search and seizures, and permit the police to conduct a warrantless search of someone’s home, then the next time someone’s home is searched without a warrant, this case is precedent to establish that the search doesn’t violate the constitution. It rubs away at all of our rights (and makes for some very bad law) if we don’t permit the constitution to apply equally to the guilty and the innocent.

Finally, there’s common sense. A prosecutor isn’t going to charge the crime that was done; she’ll charge the crime that was done, and will charge seven or eight other things “just in case.” (Not all prosecutors, not all the time, but charges do get loaded up so that something will stick.) A good lawyer is able to keep the government honest in that sense, as well, by ensuring that a person is found guilty, if at all, only for those things that person atually did.

Would I defend the guilty? Yes. I realize not everyone could, but I think that the constitutional principles at stake are too important (to everyone) not to defend the guilty as well. Because the guilty are more likely to be convicted, so their cases are more likely to shape how the law progresses, in terms of what is and is not constitutionally permissible. Also, like pravnik said, defending the guilty is likely emotionally easier.

One more thing: there have been a number of “false” convictions over the years, including men on death row later found to be factually innocent of the crimes they were convicted of. It’s sometimes harder than you might think to tell whether someone is guilty or innocent. In one of the more infamous cases, for example, the defendant purportedly confessed to the crime by describing a dream he had. He would have been put to death had lawyers (for free) not stepped in.

Cheesesteak, I’m not really sure when it became morally reprehensible to take money to do a job. If the better house painter charges more than some other guy to paint my house, is that wrong? Even if it means that only rich people will have nice houses?