Would you defend a guilty person or prosecute an innocent person?
yes (if so, please reply as to why, especially if it is not for the money or the challenge)
no, I agree with the position in this thread
no, but not for the reasons stated in this thread (if so, please reply as to your reasons)
0voters
The Michael Jackson child molestation case has got me thinkin’ – is he a pedophile (in this case), and guilty, or is the kid a lying gold-digger? Does Jackson’s attorney know whether or not he is guilty, based on the evidence? Does the prosecution know he is innocent, based on the evidence?
So, I’ve decided, that if I were an attorney, and upon examing all of the evidence (which would be done before ever accepting a case), if the guilt or innocence of the accused was obvious, I would not prosecute if the accused was innocent, and would not defend (as in, try to find a loophole in obvious evidence, or withhold obvious evidence) if the accused was guilty. Also, if I disagreed it should be illegal – the crime with which they were accused – I would not prosecute – I would defend them whether or not they were guilty. If something is not illegal that I feel should be, obviously trying to prosecute it would be futile… perhaps I would become a vigilante and settle matters on my own?
I feel the ‘justice system’ is screwed up. It removes the convicted from facing real-life consequences from real-life victims of crime (to promote the development of empathy for the victim and remorse for the crime), and doesn’t do enough to recognize that ‘crime’ is the end-result of a lifetime of socialization, and in many cases can more productively be de-socialized rather than merely “punished”. There have been some improvements, but whether it sucked or not, but especially if it still sucked… if I were an attorney – see the second paragraph. I think the only case in which I would defend the guilty would be when everyone knows they’re guilty, and the trial is really just a formality leading up to sentencing – my goal would be to promote rehabilitation.
Would you do the same if you were attorney? What do you think motivates attorneys who prosecute the innocent or defend the guilty (based on obvious evidence)? Money? The challenge? Something else?
In the american system of justice, luckily it is not up to lawyers to decide guilt or innocence. A lawyer defends someone who they believe to be guilty because every American has a right to representation. We do this mainly so that everyone has some sort of protection against the state. Also, in most cases, one must keep in mind that a lawyer, when faced with obvious guilt, does not try to get the person completely off, they plea bargain to reduce the sentence.
as for prosecuting the innocent, if the evidence is so overwhelming for innocence, the case should never be brought to trial. As a DA, it is your decision to bring the person to trial or not, so if the proof of innocence is there, there should be no trial (barring corruption, but I am assuming a generally honest person attempting to do their job well)
Do not forget that an accused may not tell his lawyer the truth.
It could even be argued that a guilty person may actually get a better defence if he does not tell his lawyer the whole truth.
But, quite frankly, it does not matter. A lawyer does not care about the guilt or innocence of his client: his job is to defend him. And if he has to tell lies, he’ll do it. If he has to destroy evidence, thats no problem to him. And as for intimidating a witness, well, that’s his job.
Everyone knows that it is a circus and no one within the ‘system’ is offended by the practices.
you are completely incorrect. a lawyer’s job is to defend his client within the law. i know most people have horrible opinions of lawyers but this is getting blown out of proportion. there are sleezy people in any profession who simply care about money, but they are the exception, not the rule. The American Bar Association actually does a pretty good job policing its members (as opposed to say, the AMA), and has shown itself to be quite willing to kick out those who has used illegal/unethical measures. don’t be fooled by tv law dramas. most lawyers do their jobs within the bounds of law. now they may very well me mean assholes who go to the very edges of the law, but this destroying evidence and intimidating witnesses stuff is just bs.
I wouldn’t defend someone who I thought was guilty, because I don’t think I could give them an adequate defense. I wouldn’t help out the prosecution or do anything to keep them from being defended in general, though, I’d just insist that someone else took the case, if possible.
Now, that’s if I thought they were guilty. If I knew they were, I’d have to do something about it.
I am not a lawyer. But I stand by my statement. (When I said ‘intimidating witnesses’, I meant ‘at the trial’, not on the streets.)
One question to you: if a client of yours brings you the murder weapon and admits to the crime, what do you do (as a lawyer)? If you reckon that the prosecution’s case is otherwise fairly weak, you may reckon that pleading inocent is worth a chance. If you hand in the weapon to the police, you are condemming your client to life imprisonment, in all probability. If you ask him to destroy it, you are contributing to helping his defence, and he may walk free. However, in doing so you have committed a felony.
So, what do you do? (I know, your client sounds like the client from hell, but there you go.)
As for the Bar Association policing its memebrs, I have my doubts. Not based on much evidence, I agree, but simply on the idea that no association that defends its members and their interests can also discipline them. Those two hats seem incompatible.
Given the large number of lawyers, I am always struck at the low numbers being reprimanded. I cannot believe that such low ‘conviction’ rates reflect the amount of perjury committed! (That’s another thread I guess.)
I think you should sever the two questions and try them separately. Depending upon the crime, I would almost certainly defend a guilty person. I would not under any circumstance I can envision prosecute one I knew was innocent.
Today’s attorney who defends the guilty is the same man he was yesterday when he was prosecuting the innocent.
The only facet of his life that has changed is his employer. The goal is still the same, to win a big case and thus enhance his professional reputation.
The question I’d like to see answered in this forum is why we presume that the lawyer who knowingly defends a guilty man today will somehow elevate his ethical standards when he takes a job with the prosecuter’s office tomorrow.
The man (or woman) will still be driven by the same desire to win the case as a prosecutor as he was as a defence attorney.
Questions of actual guilt or innocence will still take a back seat to the desire to win at trial.
Prosecuting the innocent is every bit as challenging as securing an acquittal for the guilty. There will always be an attorney willing to rise to the challenge.
This is why prosecutors knowingly prosecute innocent people; a desire to win a tough case.
They’re often times the very same people who knowingly defended the guilty at an earlier point in their careers.
Again, why should we assume their ethical standards have changed when they take a job at the DA’s office?
I think that’s too simplist, PhilHubbard. The Constitution (in America, anyway- can’t speak for the rest of the world) guarentees everyone the right to a vigorous defense, regardless of quilt or innocence. What’s unethical about that?
And what of a lawyer who defends a client guilty of a crime like cohabitation, adultry, or sodomy? I read a couple days ago of a woman who had to quit her job to avoid being fired as a police dispatcher because she had a live-in boyfriend. Seems she lives in some ‘redneck’ state where living together “in sin” is a crime. The ACLU is backing her up. Can she find a lawywer unethical enough to take the case, even though by her own admission, she’s guilty of the “crime?” You see, in this case, all but the most fervent neocon would admit the 200 year old law is wrong, not the woman.
How about someone living in the same state being prosecuted for sodomy because he’s a gay man having sex with another man? Surely since it’s illegal, and he commiited the “crime”, it would be unethical for a lawyer to try to keep him from serving the decade in prison he so richly deserves for doing what all of use hetero’s enjoy every day.
A defense attorney’s job is to defend his client. Period. To do less would be unethical. The hypothetical question concerns perfect knowledge that the client if guilty. But what if the lawyer only thinks he is? Should his defense of that client be less vigorous? That type of thinking would result in two trials for the accused: one by jury and one against his own councel.
I don’t think the 200 year old law is off the topic at all. My point is that I really do think it would be unethical for a lawyer not to vigorously defend his/her client, regardless of guilt or innocence. And I do think it’s relevant, especially since the fact that something is illegal doesn’t necessarily mean it’s immoral.
id be 2 issues for me too, but for different reasons. I dont nkow if id want to protect a guilty person(one i knew was guilty of the crime and i felt was ammoral), since id want a pep of the steets any day. As for trying to convict an innocent man, well, i dont care much, one more person off the streets is one more person i have to deal with, and more cash for me.
Depending upon the crime, I would almost certainly defend a guilty person. I would not under any circumstance I can envision prosecute one I knew was innocent.
Bingo. I could not ever be a lawyer, regardless of how I enjoy debate.
OJ Simpson? I believe $ is the issue.