Comments on: “How could you defend someone you know is guilty?”

By: Aaron Smallets

Aaron Smallets — Thu, 12 May 2016 01:03:32 +0000

I think what’s missing here is intent. Which I would think on a site about justice and lawyers that would be rather simple. A defense lawyer has an intent to defend the worst type of person, because “the worst” is well..subjective. This way, they themselves can be judged by a certain standard. The standard that…no matter who walks through their doors…they will do the best they can to defend them. Because to at least one person, that client may be seen as “the worst”. But that’s not the defense lawyer’s job to decide such. Thus the courtroom.

So it shouldn’t be a lawyer’s “intent” to get their client off. It should only be the “intent” to do the best job they can. However, courtroom decisions are only measured by “won” or “didn’t win”, not “almost won”. Therefore maybe that’s why we see many defense lawyers doing whatever it takes…which to me is more than “the best job they can” to get their clients off. but all this is to hold justice up to a certain standard….and I’m afraid by doing so…the people have lost faith in justice completely.

By: Megan Earl

Megan Earl — Fri, 17 Apr 2015 15:50:31 +0000

This is such an interesting article. I’ve always been intrigued by the relationship between justice and criminal defense. It’s important to remember that these people are professionals. Also, just because someone has been convicted, doesn’t necessarily mean they’re guilty. Imagine how great of a feeling it would be to help clear an innocent person’s name.

By: Ronald Swanson

Ronald Swanson — Wed, 28 Jan 2015 16:13:21 +0000

I’ve always wondered how attorneys could defend somebody when they knew that the person they were defending was guilty. It made no sense to me how you could live with yourself while doing this, but this article shed a lot of light on the situation for me. I love how he said that the duty of the attorney is to defend, not to do justice. I’ve come to realize that a defense attorney is giving people equal rights. My entire view point on defense attorneys has now changed. http://www.813law.com/criminal-defense/

By: KR

KR — Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:44:30 +0000

Thank you for your post. I’m not a lawyer, I’m a writer, but this is something I have wondered about. I think one especially good point in it is that a defense lawyer’s job is to defend. That is an important statement, even if you didn’t necessarily think that was the whole answer. I think if the defense attorney doesn’t defend to the best of his/her ability, that makes the justice system unbalanced.

There have been plenty of people convicted of serious crimes that were later exonerated after serving hard time. It could be that their lawyer thought they were guilty too and did not pursue their defense like they should. Not only was the person innocent, but whoever did the crime got away with it, so two injustices were permitted to happen.

It is the prosecutor’s duty to present the best case he/she can if they think the person is guilty.

The judge balances the sides and make sure the proceedings are legal. If one person is slacking, then justice is not being served.

To defend a person who did something abhorrent in society and to a lawyer’s own sense of what is right, would take a very strong person who really believes in the importance of his/her profession.

Everybody says lawyers are in it for the money. That seems funny to say that about a criminal defense lawyer. It seems to me, there are plenty of easier ways to make it than that.

By: James

James — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:09:27 +0000

Great excuse for corrupt lawyers that only care about making money and not at all about justice. Fucking retard.

By: Justin Ross

Justin Ross — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 06:44:31 +0000

I am sorry but I must take issue with both views. The newbies statement, “An attorney’s ultimate goal is to seek justice and not to simply win.”, doesn’t even answer the question. The statement itself implies that the defendant must be innocent because if they are known to be guilty then these two aspirations become mutually exclusive.

Even worse is Scott’s view and you are too easy on him when pointing out his unwillingness to defend certain criminals. His entire opinion is based on moral apathy thinly veiled in a seemingly noble philosophy. He’s arguing that defending criminals is a noble duty and there is no place for judgement or moral standards. Yet, Mr. Scott will not represent certain criminals because he judges them to be the worst of the worst and morally reprehensible. Okay, but don’t then tell me there is no place for judgement or morality in a defense attorney’s job. At least be consistent. This flaw in his argument properly illustrates how Mr. Scott’s answer to this question is, by design, a carefully structured and eloquent philosophical paradigm which makes him and others like him justify and rationalize the amoral aspect of their jobs.

The fact is the question is legitimate and the answer is far more complicated than any one thesis. Ask 12 defense attorneys get 12 different answers. It’s a mix of human nature, drive, moral integrity, money and a number of other human characteristics. But there is a reason why some very smart and talented lawyers choose paths other than criminal defense.

By: John Kindley

John Kindley — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 16:34:50 +0000

In reply to John Doe. Honestly I'm not that annoyed by the question and I don't get asked it all that often. It's a good and legitimate question, as you state, and it has a good and legitimate answer.

By: John Doe

John Doe — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 08:00:54 +0000

It seems interesting to me that defense attorneys would get so annoyed by this very legitimate concern regarding the ethical aspect of their employment. Of course, society at large has been trained to have certain expectations and make moral judgments in order to have law and order. So a rapist is repugnant. A child molest ruins lives. And yes, the average person has no idea what the law entails; and who doesn’t question the ethical nature of representing these types of people who make these types of life choices. That being said, I have nothing but admiration for the defense attorneys I have met. They are energetic, smart and amazingly committed to justice: for their clients. Non-judgmental too; I guess they’d have to be in order to do the job in the first place. To defend those who have noone to defend them; the most hated members of society; that, to me, is a form of heroism of sorts.

By: An Open Email to Norm Pattis | People v. State

An Open Email to Norm Pattis | People v. State — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 19:14:37 +0000

[…] coincided with your limited defense of me when most of the rest of the blawgosphere mocked me over my position on the topic of justice, and with Greenfield’s ridiculous banning of me from his stupid blog. […]

By: CF Oxtrot

CF Oxtrot — Sun, 27 Feb 2011 16:18:40 +0000

Defending an accused within the parameters of “the system we have” (to badly quote Donny Rumsfeld) can happen while also protecting notions of justice.

In your most recent post you said an unjust law is not a law at all — that’s almost got the point. An unjust law has no force of law, but it is still a law. It lacks moral force, because it is out of step with the morality of the people whose acts it pretends to govern/limit/confine. But it is still a law, on the books, and therefore must be accommodated by the lawyer. And by “accommodated” I mean addressed jurisprudentially, and then distinguished, made parallel/applicable, or outright dismissed from application — through legal reasoning and appeals to justice.

If a man came to me confessing he’d been involved in the death of another, professing innocence of murder but guilty of an unintentional role in the other person’s death, I’d be working to ensure he didn’t get charged with any degree of murder, and working to distinguish manslaughter. But if later my investigation showed there was no accident and the fellow intentionally and cold-bloodedly killed the victim, I’d be forced to revisit my strategy and my representation of this client.

The attorney-client relationship is two-way. If the client lies to you, you aren’t under some holy obligation to ignore the lie and continue trying to get the client off without punishment.

You have to side with justice, with bringing your erstwhile client to justice. You can do this by talking to your client and telling him that the truth indicates he was culpable and the best you can do is mitigate the sentence.

That’s your obligation.

And no, I’m not a “newbie” lawyer, I’ve been practicing since 1989.