Defending criminals

[ckchan]

Hi,

I’m new here… i’m hoping that i will be able to post the question as clearly as i can. pls be gentle.

how far can a defense lawyer (supposing said defense lawyer is a practicing Catholic) fight for his client, for example that infamous Austrian Incest case that is now in the news. If the lawyer is a pretty intelligent and gifted one, up to what point can he ‘defend’ the crime of his client- the most minimum number of years the legal system will allow or is it something that he will have to consult with his confessor…? this just got me thinking… tnx for reading.

 

[Trishie]

Welcome to CAF!

I wonder if a Catholic could even take such a case of such obvious and terrible depravity and injustice. I would have thought that the case would require a lawyer to be concerned with the case in a totally attached manner. It’s a high profile case and if the lawyer was not motivated with a Christian conscience, perhaps payment and notoriety would be reward enough and the primary consideration, if not also a universal principle of human rights.

Hopefully you will receive responses from a criminal lawyer or a law student for a legal persepective.

Regards, Trishie

 

[ckchan]

haha thanks for welcoming me.

yea- I was thinking (in a very wishful thinking way) what if almost everyone who will take a criminal case such as this is a practicing Catholic- what the scenario will be. ^^

Welcome to CAF!

I wonder if a Catholic could even take such a case of such obvious and terrible depravity and injustice. I would have thought that the case would require a lawyer to be concerned with the case in a totally attached manner. It’s a high profile case and if the lawyer was not motivated with a Christian conscience, perhaps payment and notoriety would be reward enough and the primary consideration, if not also a universal principle of human rights.

Hopefully you will receive responses from a criminal lawyer or a law student for a legal persepective.

Regards, Trishie

 

[didymus]

Welcome to CAF!

I wonder if a Catholic could even take such a case of such obvious and terrible depravity and injustice. I would have thought that the case would require a lawyer to be concerned with the case in a totally attached manner. It’s a high profile case and if the lawyer was not motivated with a Christian conscience, perhaps payment and notoriety would be reward enough and the primary consideration, if not also a universal principle of human rights.

Hopefully you will receive responses from a criminal lawyer or a law student for a legal persepective.

Regards, Trishie

Why should a Catholic not take this case? Everyone seems to agree in principle that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a defense – until a really heinous crime comes along then it’s “Forget the lawyers and the trial, hang the bastard!”
Then it’s, “Okay, I guess we have to have a trial but any lawyer who defends him deserves to go to Hell.”

Why?

I’m not familiar with the case you’re referring to but why do the lawyer’s motives have to be pure – they are probably mixed like everyone else’s. I’d bet on a desire to see that the accused gets a good defense and the fact that a case like this is a huge professional challenge.

Btw, do you hold prosecutors to the same Christian standards as defense attorneys? They commit blackmail and bribery every day of the week.

 

[ckchan]

perhaps, Human law should ultimately serve God’s law… give glory to God in the end, etc. as main principle- i mean.

Why should a Catholic not take this case? Everyone seems to agree in principle that everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a defense – until a really heinous crime comes along then it’s “Forget the lawyers and the trial, hang the bastard!”
Then it’s, “Okay, I guess we have to have a trial but any lawyer who defends him deserves to go to Hell.”

Why?

I’m not familiar with the case you’re referring to but why do the lawyer’s motives have to be pure – they are probably mixed like everyone else’s. I’d bet on a desire to see that the accused gets a good defense and the fact that a case like this is a huge professional challenge.

Btw, do you hold prosecutors to the same Christian standards as defense attorneys? They commit blackmail and bribery every day of the week.

 

[Trishie]

Didymus,
It’s a shocking case where a father detained his daughter in a cellar for around 24 years and had several children by her, most of whom spent their entire childhood in the cellar. The others the father pretended had been left on the doorstep by the supposedly uncaring daughter because they were cryers. The daughter came out finally old before her time, the cellar children communicating largely with grunts, and the eldest daughter almost died after the children’s recsue. The OP’s question was understandable given the barbarity of this incest, murder of one sick baby by neglect, and ruining of the life of daughter and children.
guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/28/austria.internationalcrime2

There is no question of condemning the lawyer who defended him, but it’s a case some might find difficult to participate in.

 

[LilyM]

Didymus,
It’s a shocking case where a father detained his daughter in a cellar for around 24 years and had several children by her, most of whom spent their entire childhood in the cellar. The others the father pretended had been left on the doorstep by the supposedly uncaring daughter because they were cryers. The daughter came out finally old before her time, the cellar children communicating largely with grunts, and the eldest daughter almost died after the children’s recsue. The OP’s question was understandable given the barbarity of this incest, murder of one sick baby by neglect, and ruining of the life of daughter and children.
guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/28/austria.internationalcrime2

There is no question of condemning the lawyer who defended him, but it’s a case some might find difficult to participate in.

Everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a vigorous defence (provided no immoral or unethical behaviour occurs in the course of defending) - and furthermore is entitled to be presumed innocent of the allegation, regardless of its heinousness, until proved guilty.

In this case a defence isn’t even an issue - the man plead guilty to most of the charges, it’s just a question of his sentencing.

And everyone found guilty is entitled to have every mitigating factor that is available to them in regard to sentencing used in their favour. In such cases the judge is well able, with the help of the experts involved on the prosecution and defence sides of sentencing arguments, to balance out the heinous nature of the crime with any factors which might legitimately be held to indicate a lessened sentence.

Blackmail and bribery every day of the week? And all defence attorneys and defendants are pure as the driven snow, of course - they never bribe or threaten witnesses or juries, never destroy incriminating documents or tamper with other evidence.

What with defendants getting off every day of the week on technicalities as well, it about evens out, in my experience (and I’ve had more than most).

 

[Becks]

It never ceases to amaze me how the two sides of this argument (defense and prosecution) refuse to see the other side’s point of view. Prosecutors are convinced that defense attorneys are corrupt and want to “work the system” in order to get their clients off on “technicalities” (I hate that term), while defense attorneys are convinced that prosecutors have all the advantages and are just aiming for political gain.

We live in an imperfect world and both prosecutors and defense attorneys that I have known fit those stereotypes mentioned above, but that’s not what is supposed to happen. The prosecutor and defense attorney are performing the exact same function: representing a client (hopefully to the best of their abilities). The prosecutor represents the interest of the state and the defense attorney represents the interests of the defendant. If BOTH these attorneys don’t do their jobs as well as possible then society as a whole is harmed.

When I was a criminal defense attorney I represented some clients that I believe (although I do not know) were guilty. I still had no problem arguing in court that evidence should be inadmissible because the police officers didn’t collect it correctly. Why? If the police are allowed to violate the rules to convict guilty people, then that increases the chance that they will violate the rules to convict innocent people as well.

Sorry for the rant. In answer to your original question, I would have no problem defending anyone to ensure that they received a fair trial.

 

[ckchan]

BTW, i think the defendant already pleaded guilty for incest, as well as rape (?) etc. I think I would also like to include in the op that this case seems to be a new low for evil… and will the defense attorney (who let’s say- is a devout Catholic) seek the most minimum jail sentence since he has the supposed talent to pull it off… and if he does, will the defense attorney be free of any guilt in God’s sight?

Hi,

I’m new here… i’m hoping that i will be able to post the question as clearly as i can. pls be gentle.

how far can a defense lawyer (supposing said defense lawyer is a practicing Catholic) fight for his client, for example that infamous Austrian Incest case that is now in the news. If the lawyer is a pretty intelligent and gifted one, up to what point can he ‘defend’ the crime of his client- the most minimum number of years the legal system will allow or is it something that he will have to consult with his confessor…? this just got me thinking… tnx for reading.

 

[Appleby]

I worked for a young defence lawyer once and asked him about a particularly nasty case he was defending; he said that everyone was entitled to a defence, and that he was free to take a case or not, but he would not be a criminal lawyer because he could not defend someone who was clearly guilty. And there have been plenty of cases in which the general public believed the person was undeniably guilty and later had been proved utterly wrong. Recently we had someone finally exonerated after being kept in prison for decades (narrowly escaping being hanged at the age of 14) because he was ‘obviously’ guilty of killing his girlfriend. He was absolutely innocent, as it happened, and thanks to his lawyer he was freed.

My young lawyer called these “Rumpole Cases.”

 

[ckchan]

thanks for the responses!

also, will a practicing Catholic lawyer be free of guilt in God’s eyes for defending institutions like Planned Parenthood that will help abortions remain legal?

I believe cases such as abortion is legal in human law but it is not in God’s law…

 

[LilyM]

thanks for the responses!

also, will a practicing Catholic lawyer be free of guilt in God’s eyes for defending institutions like Planned Parenthood that will help abortions remain legal?

I believe cases such as abortion is legal in human law but it is not in God’s law…

That’s a different matter entirely - you’re talking about not just a law, even a nonsensical law, but a manifestly sinful one, one which cannot be supported under any circumstances as a result.

Most laws are not sinful, and we are bound to obey all lawful authority, so one is free to defend those accused of breaking those non-contentious laws, or prosecute those who do break them.

 

[ckchan]

That’s a different matter entirely - you’re talking about not just a law, even a nonsensical law, but a manifestly sinful one, one which cannot be supported under any circumstances as a result.

i see… so no good, practicing Catholic lawyer can defend an institution like Planned Parenthood- because it is perpetuating murder of the unborn. So, if hypothetically speaking-- and a bit of a stretch-- all lawyers are practicing Catholics - who will defend Planned Parenthood… hypothetically speaking… how will they be represented in court and be given a fair trial?

 

[LilyM]

i see… so no good, practicing Catholic lawyer can defend an institution like Planned Parenthood- because it is perpetuating murder of the unborn. So, if hypothetically speaking-- and a bit of a stretch-- all lawyers are practicing Catholics - who will defend Planned Parenthood… hypothetically speaking… how will they be represented in court and be given a fair trial?

It’s not a stretch - it’s an impossibility and not even worth considering as a hypothetical really. There’s no way all lawyers could ever be Catholics, let alone practicing Catholics.

 

[ckchan]

It’s not a stretch - it’s an impossibility and not even worth considering as a hypothetical really. There’s no way all lawyers could ever be Catholics, let alone practicing Catholics.

hehe i thought with God and his grace nothing is impossible. ^^ I’m just saying that God can pull a miracle of converting people in any way he wants to… even all if not most lawyers.

 

[LilyM]

hehe i thought with God and his grace nothing is impossible. ^^ I’m just saying that God can pull a miracle of converting people in any way he wants to… even all if not most lawyers.

And when that happens I’ll rejoice as much as anyone … in all sincerity, I’d say (just my opinion) that if a particular law is unjust or sinful as the laws permitting abortion are, that no-one has any rights under those laws, which means they don’t have a right to defence lawyers either.

By the way - the right to a defence lawyer isn’t absolute in most countries apart from America. Hence California having more lawyers than the whold of France.

I’ve personally seen defendants here in Australia who’ve had to defend themselves. Public legal aid is only available here for particular types of cases, and usually for people below a particular (pretty darn low) income threshold as well.