4 ms·

I think you've hit on the nub of the problem: what "causes no harm" to the client in the lawyer-client relationship, and are lawyers supposed to act like doctor

I think you've hit on the nub of the problem: what "causes no harm" to the client in the lawyer-client relationship, and are lawyers supposed to act like doctors? It's in the interests of the judicial system that each client is entitled to a vigorous defense on a level playing field. That's the only thing that keeps the system working (as broken as it is). It's in the interests of the clients to do various things. Those things do not necessarily involve a vigorous defense or the best possible outcome for them. If I signed a paper absolving my lawyer from damages, then asked him to punch me in the nose, should he? I don't see why not. If I did the same thing with my doctor, should he? Absolutely not. This is the study of ethics, that is, the types of behaviors that professionals expect of one another as part of their profession. Ethically, I think the lawyer felt he should enter and defend the guilty plea. Whether or not that is the correct ethical decision -- and whether or not that decision is in the best interests of the judicial system -- is the interesting part.

s73ver_ 9y ago
Remember, this lawyer's action was part of a vigorous defense: He was trying to save the client from the death penalty.
- DanielBMarkham 9y ago
  There's a gap here that the lawyer (and the expert quoted) is talking about. At some point, you are menally impaired enough that the state should treat you differently. You are incapable of knowing right from wrong. But just before that point, there are a ton of folks who are severely impaired who might either wish self-harm or take actions that consistently harm themselves. How should we treat those folks?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    He was judged competent to stand trial, though. If he wasn't, it seems like the problem is with the way that determination is reached, not in his not taking his lawyer's advice.
    - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
      Is there a difference between "standing trial" and managing your defense? If so, people could fall into the cracks. I think that's what the article is getting at. If not, then either you're able to stand trial or you aren't. If so, you should be able to make whatever decisions you'd like. (I'm a big lover of freedom, so I'm in the second camp. If you're able to stand trial you're able to plea anything you'd like. But I guess there's some question here because of the public's desire not to let anybody be put to death by the courts that might have avoided it with a better defense?) If they decide this lawyer did the right thing then it seems to me like we've created three tiers where there used to be two: competent and incompetent. Now there's competent to stand trial, competent to stand trial yet incompetent to defend themselves, and completely incompetent to stand trial. Things would get a lot more complicated.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        I don't think any such distinction is recognized legally.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  > Directly contradicting his client's instructions, he suggested that McCoy suffered from diminished mental capacity and should therefore only be convicted of second-degree murder. But as the prosecutor would soon explain to the jury, that defense was legally unavailable to McCoy because Louisiana only allows a diminished capacity argument if the defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. It was one of many mistakes English appears to have made during the trial. Seems like this might be a boutique definition of "vigorous defense."
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Hey, deliberately setting your client up for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel could be considered a vigorous, even self-sacrificing, defense approach, though it's quite unorthodox (as well as both unethical and unlawful.)

s73ver_ 9y ago

Remember, this lawyer's action was part of a vigorous defense: He was trying to save the client from the death penalty.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
There's a gap here that the lawyer (and the expert quoted) is talking about. At some point, you are menally impaired enough that the state should treat you differently. You are incapable of knowing right from wrong. But just before that point, there are a ton of folks who are severely impaired who might either wish self-harm or take actions that consistently harm themselves. How should we treat those folks?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  He was judged competent to stand trial, though. If he wasn't, it seems like the problem is with the way that determination is reached, not in his not taking his lawyer's advice.
  - DanielBMarkham 9y ago
    Is there a difference between "standing trial" and managing your defense? If so, people could fall into the cracks. I think that's what the article is getting at. If not, then either you're able to stand trial or you aren't. If so, you should be able to make whatever decisions you'd like. (I'm a big lover of freedom, so I'm in the second camp. If you're able to stand trial you're able to plea anything you'd like. But I guess there's some question here because of the public's desire not to let anybody be put to death by the courts that might have avoided it with a better defense?) If they decide this lawyer did the right thing then it seems to me like we've created three tiers where there used to be two: competent and incompetent. Now there's competent to stand trial, competent to stand trial yet incompetent to defend themselves, and completely incompetent to stand trial. Things would get a lot more complicated.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      I don't think any such distinction is recognized legally.
emodendroket 9y ago
> Directly contradicting his client's instructions, he suggested that McCoy suffered from diminished mental capacity and should therefore only be convicted of second-degree murder. But as the prosecutor would soon explain to the jury, that defense was legally unavailable to McCoy because Louisiana only allows a diminished capacity argument if the defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. It was one of many mistakes English appears to have made during the trial. Seems like this might be a boutique definition of "vigorous defense."
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Hey, deliberately setting your client up for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel could be considered a vigorous, even self-sacrificing, defense approach, though it's quite unorthodox (as well as both unethical and unlawful.)