5 ms·
A better answer to the, "‘How can you represent someone who’s guilty?’ question is that defense lawyers defend the integrity of the legal system and process aga
by motohagiography 5y ago
A better answer to the, "‘How can you represent someone who’s guilty?’ question is that defense lawyers defend the integrity of the legal system and process against the people who have found themselves in government because the sovereignty of the process is what the rule of law means.
However, the process of litigation is not the representation or discovery of truth, it means currying the favor of a judge or jury - which is what makes current critical theories of social justice so pernicious, because they are also based on this "throw everything at it and see what sticks," approach to political power. Students coming out of schools appear to not be educated as stewards of truth and culture, but as raiders and looters of it.
If you have ever found yourself in opposition to someone using political complaints, they also often litigate in the same way, where you may not have even done something objectively wrong, but you have let yourself become exposed to someone leveraging a taboo against you the way that prosecutors can choose to lever laws, and it doesn't have to be true, if you have something they want (or don't want) there are no conseqeunces to lying or misrepresenting facts in the course of social justice. The judge and jury today is social media and this ubiquitous "narrative," where participants trade in slanders.
Part of this ideology is that "muh freedom," e.g. limits to state power and accountability to principle, only deprives marginalized people of complete power to wield justice if/when they seize the reins of it, but it is supported by another intellectual solvent of subjectivity that means there is no objective truth, only appeals to power and consequences.
These are the factors that made their way out of the courts, into the culture, and are now making their way back into the courts as a zombie freak ideology where there is no truth or meaning in language, and sadly I don't see the centre holding.
- giantg2 5y ago'A better answer to the, "‘How can you represent someone who’s guilty?’ question is...' Is that the person is innocent until proven guilty.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoI think the question is more "How do you represent someone who has told you they are guilty, but wants to minimize negative outcome".
- lp0_on_fire 5y agoYou represent them to the best of your ability or you get out of the profession. That's part of being a lawyer in the American legal system and if you can't deal with that then you shouldn't be one. This echos of some of the "doctors" during COVID who declared they'd rather let unvaccinated people die than treat them. Granted, most of them were probably saying this for attention and twitter points but it's still an amazing declaration to make.
- giantg2 5y agoWell, you can decline a case if you think it's not possible for you to do a good job on it. Arguably this could include a hatred for someone. If the person negarively affected you or your family with the crime, then ethics may even dictate that you can't represent them. Although I do agree this scenario of quitting a firm because the firm represented someone is a stark departure from these traditional exceptions. I get that people don't want to work for a company that does morally wrong stuff, but I don't think providing a defense should fit that. The whole concept of the system is that it should be a fair fight under the rules of law/procedure. It's almost like they're saying that they think the rules aren't fair, but that they would rather not afford people their due protection than try to correct the actual injustices in ehe system.
- xboxnolifes 5y agoI know this, which is why I replied to the person I did and not the person they replied to.
- lp0_on_fire 5y agoyes I figured we were on the same page. No harm no foul.
- giantg2 5y agoIf you believe that the system of law is just and fair, then you can give your full effort to defending them. If they are guilty (whether they tell you or not) then the system will find them as such. That's the theory anyway. Now in practice, you would probably have to tell them their best chance is to make a deal (like 80% or so of all cases anyways). This generally benefits the courts (volume is too high to process), the prosecutors (guaranteed win), and the defendant (lesser sentence). You might even think that the rules/laws are wrong or are not just. This shouldn't interfere with the idea that everyone gets a trial under those rules. If this is case, then it might be a good idea to get out of that line of work. Also, there is a big difference between not wanting to work at a firm that represented someone and not taking on a case personally. You can personally say you don't want a case for some reasons (like not being able to do a good job), but if you're saying that nobody should represent them, that's an affront the the principles of your profession.
- kingcharles 5y agoYou're misquoting. It is "presumed innocent". Most criminal defendants are guilty of the crime for which they are charged. I think it can be really hard on lawyers at times. Society really frowns upon a criminal defense attorney's representation of a rapist, and of course their opinion isn't changed when the defendant is found factually innocent at trial. The USA has a legal system wherein even a guilty murderer can walk free if the police used unconstitutional means to gather the evidence against them. This system was put in place by judges (not by legislators) simply because they were sick of police and prosecutors using these unethical methods to convict, and then there was no investigation or misconduct charges against them.
- watwut 5y agoMajority of convictions are plea deals, because trial penalty is just too large. And it is pretty much impossible to overturn existing convicion on anything but technical process mistake - no matter how convincing new evidence of innocense is. While guilty murderer can walk, courts are also super eager to accept shoddy "scientific" evidence. And being defense layer is also worst for your career the being prosecutor. So, I am not sure it is as rosy as you make it sound.
- kingcharles 5y agoI apologize if I made it sound rosy. It's horrible. I've been in pre-trial detention continuously now for almost nine years waiting for a trial.