Much Ado About Nothing?
My latest effort to clarify and simplify what I’ve been trying to say is here, in a comment on a post by Norm Pattis:
When I link Justice with the role of the criminal defense attorney I primarily have in mind our war against the injustices of the State. The State is the largest criminal organization on the planet. Its crimes dwarf those committed by private persons. But yes, private persons commit real crimes and real injustices too. I hate crimes committed by private persons for the same reasons I hate crimes committed by the State. Nevertheless, it is Just that we defend people accused of crimes regardless of their guilt or innocence because . . . “it is better for ten guilty men to be set free than for one innocent person to be convicted.”
The conviction of the innocent is a crime if ever there was one, and I suspect it occurs more frequently than the acquittal of the guilty.
Why do I think it’s important to link Justice with the role of the criminal defense attorney? Because to say “we defend” says nothing. It’s a tautology. We are “crime-fighters.” Maybe by saying so we’ll get more respect, not for our own sakes, but for the sake of a freer society.
Follow
to say “we defend” says nothing.
I think this is the crux of the problem I have with this whole discussion. I’ve got no dog in this fight – I work for a defense firm, but I’m not an attorney and won’t become one – but it seems curious to me that you’re so interested in staking a claim on “justice” because you want to be able to signify to others that you’re acting in the pursuit of a noble goal.
I’m curious, though, why “defense” isn’t a noble goal unto itself. Why would that be an insufficient ideal? Those who require defense are those who are under attack. If a lawyer says, “I defend”, that says a hell of a lot, and it’s hardly a tautology – it’s an effective mission statement. “Justice”, as such an abstract, subjective concept, is arbitrary – that means nothing. It requires contortions of logic, but anyone can claim it – a cop who gives false testimony against a suspect he “knows” did it can argue passionately that he acts in the service of justice, too. So I’m perplexed to see a defense attorney fight so hard to say that he has the right to claim he seeks justice through his work. I don’t disagree with you – especially if the “justice” you seek is a justice that sees those with authority having to work as hard as possible to take freedom from those less powerful – we can call that justice. But why’s that better than “defense”? Justice means nothing. “Defense” means to repel an attack. It’s not arbitrary or subjective.
Since so much what you’re saying seems to hinge on changing the way that defense attorneys are perceived, it seems like you’re going to continue to face a struggle – not just from the attorneys who’ve continued this conversation online, but from everyone who sees getting the proverbial child murderer off as a great injustice, who will be far less inclined to engage your point when you say, “I’m doing it in the name of justice”. That’s essentially asking people to change their entire perception of justice as a concept. Claiming, meanwhile, to strictly defend – and explaining the necessity of a defense of anyone being attacked by those more powerful – allows people to decide for themselves what justice means to them. And it seems to me that it’d be a lot more persuasive.
1You raise very good points. I’ve been meaning to respond, and will, but am currently tied up with an appellate brief.
2