Thoughts on Strike Lawyer
Mike at Crime & Federalism, who’s been a supporter of John Regan aka Strike Lawyer, now writes, in connection with the release of the West Memphis 3:
The conviction remains a total outrage, although I’ll wager the young men who were wrongfully convicted are pleased that their lawyers didn’t go on strike.
I commented in response:
Do I detect a hint of reversal in attitude toward Strike Lawyer? I note that with respect to the particular case at issue Strike Lawyer has done the very opposite of go on strike. If there is criticism to be made of him, it’s for not letting the case go, for not accepting the “finality” valued by the criminal justice system, for looking to extra-judicial avenues of appeal that from my perspective would seem to have absolutely no prospect of practical success (but I don’t know the whole story). Now, with respect to the criminal justice system, with respect to taking on and fighting other cases, with respect to his profession as a lawyer, he may well have said to hell with it, but that’s his prerogative. There is a logic to it. There is a logic to being unable to accept and abide certain injustices, although this inability may be peculiarly strong in certain human beings. And once one recognizes this about oneself, recognizes that one case can kill you, recognizes that you are the type of person who will go down with the ship, recognizes that whether one is killed depends entirely upon the judgment of judges one doesn’t trust or respect, it may become logical to leave other battles to more detached souls.
Follow
