Lawyers defending guilty people

[EphelDuath]

Suppose a defense attorney (for the sake discussion, let’s call him Mr. Smith) knows his client is guilty of something like rape; and this attorney, without breaking any laws of the court, is able to achieve a “not guilty” verdict in court. Said rapist then goes out and rapes another person. Did Mr. Smith do anything morally wrong? Is he partially responsible for the second rape?

 

[Reepicheep]

I don’t believe so.
Consider: Innocent people deserve a defense if accused.
You have no reliable way of knowing which accused people are innocent other than holding a trial.
You can’t be sure they get a fair trial unless they have a defense.
Conclusion: The only way to ensure that innocent people get a competent defense is to allow all accused people a competent defense.
Thus it is the lawyer’s duty to provide his client with the best defense he can, within the law.

But how if he knows, because the client told him, that the client is guilty?
Even so: if the lawyer dumps a client who admits guilt, then no client can safely admit damaging facts to his lawyer for fear of being abandoned.
But without the truth, the lawyer can’t provide a fair defense.
Thus, Attorney-Client Privilege: the client must be able to tell his lawyer the truth without fear of losing his chance at a defense.

 

[EphelDuath]

But how if he knows, because the client told him, that the client is guilty?
Even so: if the lawyer dumps a client who admits guilt, then no client can safely admit damaging facts to his lawyer for fear of being abandoned.

If a client lies to his lawyer, then I agree that the lawyer is not culpable. However, if a client admits guilt to his attorney, and because of the attorney’s skillful tactics is able to win an acquittal for a man who is a danger to society, is it not the case that the lawyer is only enabling a dangerous man instead of providing him the help he needs.

 

[Heavens_Flowers]

If a client admits guilt to you, you should excuse yourself from the case,in the courts eyes that person is allowed a fair trial, but I myself would not want to willingly defend someone that has admitted guilt .even in committing a minor sin we have to pay restitution so to speak, and a person who admits guilt should except the punishment as well, being remorseful is good, and should most definitely show mercy if there is remorse but all the same restitution should be made by the defendant if they made if they did the crime. Know in saying that if you unknowingly get a guilty party out, then I don’t believe you are held accountable.

 

[didymus]

If a client lies to his lawyer, then I agree that the lawyer is not culpable. However, if a client admits guilt to his attorney, and because of the attorney’s skillful tactics is able to win an acquittal for a man who is a danger to society, is it not the case that the lawyer is only enabling a dangerous man instead of providing him the help he needs.

The help an accused criminal needs is an attorney to protect his rights and make sure he receives a fair trial. The lawyer is there to make sure the prosecution actually proves its case against his client.
Some (many, most?) criminal lawyers make it a point not to ask if their clients are in fact guilty so as not to curtail how they handle the case.

 

[chrysostim83]

John Mortimer wrote an interesting story about this called “Rumpole and the Alternative Society.” His answer is that a lawyer cannot defend a client whom he knows to be guilty.

The case is perhaps simpler if the client confesses his guilt to the lawyer, since to give such a confession is, in effect, to instruct the lawyer to plead guilty on behalf of the client.

 

[LilyM]

Firstly - the vast majority of accused who are guilty actually plead guilty, there are all sorts of official and unofficial mechanisms in the criminal system that very heavily encourage this. Probably not a few innocent people also plead guilty for the same reasons. So a lawyer will almost always encourage a plea of guilty, for the most part, when the client admits guilt.

Secondly - yes, an unfortunate side-effect of our criminal law system is that guilty people can sometimes go free on a technicality. That’s because of the presumption of not-guilt (which isn’t the same thing as innocence) until guilt is proven either on balance of probabilities or reasonable doubt. Equally unfortunate would be those who aren’t guilty but are convicted nonetheless because judges and juries are sloppy in applying the correct legal procedures and definitions rigorously to each case.

Being as we aren’t capable of reading minds and souls and knowing guilt of a certainty, we can’t decently operate otherwise than on a presumption of innocence until guilt is established to a court’s satisfaction. Which is a slightly different thing to a client saying to a lawyer that they are guilty - after all, there are people who falsely admit to crimes to gain attention, or because they’re insane or their minds are addled by drugs at the time or whatnot.

I don’t agree with Mortimer - we’re talking about legally determined punishments applied to legally defined wrongs, and the moral doesn’t necessarily enter into it (otherwise all sorts of morally wrong things would be punishable by law, such as adultery or whatnot). If an accused’s behaviour is found to not fit within the legal definition of a particular crime for whatever reason, then why on earth should they be subject to legal punishment for it?

 

[peary]

Suppose a defense attorney (for the sake discussion, let’s call him Mr. Smith) knows his client is guilty of something like rape; and this attorney, without breaking any laws of the court, is able to achieve a “not guilty” verdict in court. Said rapist then goes out and rapes another person. Did Mr. Smith do anything morally wrong? Is he partially responsible for the second rape?

Every person in this country has the right to be judged by a jury of his or her peers.
O.J. Simpson is one brought to mind. Although inwardly many believe that he was as guilty as hell, still he was judged innocent by his peers. Does this mean he was not guilty of the crime? No, it means that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him, or there was reasonable doubt established on the evidence. Did his lawyer do anything wrong? No.

Our system is quite different than the European system. Over there, you are guilty before being proved innocent. How else do you explain why those associated with the disappearance and assumed death of Natalie Holloway in Aruba being thrown in jail the way they were? It is the exact opposite of our justice system.

 

[Cristiano]

Every person in this country has the right to be judged by a jury of his or her peers.
O.J. Simpson is one brought to mind. Although inwardly many believe that he was as guilty as hell, still he was judged innocent by his peers. Does this mean he was not guilty of the crime? No, it means that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him, or there was reasonable doubt established on the evidence. Did his lawyer do anything wrong? No.

Our system is quite different than the European system. Over there, you are guilty before being proved innocent. How else do you explain why those associated with the disappearance and assumed death of Natalie Holloway in Aruba being thrown in jail the way they were? It is the exact opposite of our justice system.

There is no European system. Different countries different rules, you can easily see that with extraditions from one European country to another.

 

[OraLabora]

One also needs to consider degrees of guilt. The state may charge someone with 1st degree murder. The client admits to his lawyer that he killed the victim but it was not pre-meditated. The lawyer is morally bound to defend the client and try to either get the charge reduced, or defend the client in court if no plea bargain is possible.

 

[Langdell]

Anyone who becomes a criminal defense lawyer knows that most criminal defendants did what they’re accused of. (And most criminal defense lawyers start their careers as prosecutors, to learn the ropes.)

However, the defense lawyer plays a very specific role in the justice system. He’s not the judge or the jury or the prosecutor. The system is designed such that the defense lawyer makes the best possible case for his side (within the rules), and the prosecutor makes the best possible case for his side (within the rules), the judge acts as the gatekeeper of what gets presented to the jury, and the jury (or sometimes the judge) makes the factual findings. If defense lawyers refuse to defend people they believe are guilty, then the lawyers are acting as the judge and jury.

That being said, there are certain rules constraining what defense lawyers can do. For example, if the lawyer has good reason to conclude that his client (or one of his witnesses) is going to lie on the stand, then he’s not permitted to put that person on the stand. If the person is the defendant, he can still insist on addressing the jury, but the judge will typically know what’s going in that situation and either won’t let the defendant speak to the jury at all or will restrict what the defendant can say.

In addition, after the jury has been selected, the defense attorney will need the judge’s permission to withdraw and may be ordered to stay on even though he doesn’t want to.

(I’m a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer. So if there are any criminal lawyers out there, I would welcome (name removed by moderator)ut on the above.)
.

 

[EphelDuath]

My problem is that if the lawyer makes “the best possible case” for a guilty person, that he could not have done for himself, and thus acquits the guilty person, then he’s using his abilities to put a dangerous person on the streets.

 

[LilyM]

My problem is that if the lawyer makes “the best possible case” for a guilty person, that he could not have done for himself, and thus acquits the guilty person, then he’s using his abilities to put a dangerous person on the streets.

So if you were charged with a crime you’d be happy for your lawyer to do a half-hearted job on your behalf, being paid by you or the taxpayer to be deliberately incompetent, on the grounds that in their individual (totally inexpert) opinion you were dangerous? The idea is preposterous.

Isn’t it actually the prosecution’s job to exert all their efforts to put dangerous people away? What about the fact that lawyers (defence lawyers as well) at times may have a duty to the Court to act in ways that may be prejudicial to their own case?

Are prosecutors so underresourced and incompetent that we need defence lawyers to be doing their job for them as well? Because of course defendants are all rich and knowledgeable.

If this your opinion, then why not make it easier all round and do away with defence lawyers altogether. Just lock up every person who through their own ignorance of the law (which ignorance you can be sure the prosecutors do NOT share) can’t mount a competent defense for themselves, along with the few who really are dangerous. Problem is - who gets to decide who’s dangerous anyway?

Our legal system is founded upon the premise ‘better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted’. There are countries that aren’t so blessed - where people are routinely locked up for no good reason on trumped-up charges without a chance to mount any defence let alone a competent one. Feel free to move to any of them and see how much more you enjoy life there.

 

[chrysostim83]

We seem to be in danger of confusing three different questions here.

1. 
   *]Can a lawyer defend a client who is actually guilty?
   *]Can a lawyer defend a client he believes to be guilty?
   *]Can a lawyer defend a client he knows beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty?
   
   By “defend,” I mean get the client acquitted. With this definition, it’s clear that (1) and (2) have affirmative answers. The answer to (3) is much less clear and becomes positively dubious when the lawyer’s knowledge comes from the client’s confession.
   
   I second the motion to hear from a criminal lawyer.

 

[EphelDuath]

So if you were charged with a crime you’d be happy for your lawyer to do a half-hearted job on your behalf, being paid by you or the taxpayer to be deliberately incompetent, on the grounds that in their individual (totally inexpert) opinion you were dangerous? The idea is preposterous.

If one confessed to a dangerous crime, then I am troubled by the notion that he deserves to be given a legal defense under the guise of innocence that the attorney knows is false.

If this your opinion, then why not make it easier all round and do away with defence lawyers altogether. Just lock up every person who through their own ignorance of the law (which ignorance you can be sure the prosecutors do NOT share) can’t mount a competent defense for themselves, along with the few who really are dangerous. Problem is - who gets to decide who’s dangerous anyway?

Because some innocent people are wrongly charged. These are the ones who deserve a reasonable defense. I don’t think attorneys should knowingly try and put dangerous people on the streets, such as rapists or serial murderers. The justification you are giving is that every person deserves a proper defense – well, the defense here is that they aren’t guilty, which in this hypothetical scenario, is false. These defense attorneys make a profit off of defending lies because they think it will prove to be successful.

Our legal system is founded upon the premise ‘better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted’.

A thousand guilty men could kill a thousand innocent men if they aren’t given the help or imprisonment they need. I find this mantra to be ridiculous. How about we simply stop prosecuting people, since we could always accidentally imprison an innocent person? Apparently that’s worse than the danger that violent people pose to society.

You seem to think that if an attorney refuses to defend a person he knows is guilty (such as a confession of the crime, or DNA evidence that are thrown out due to legal technicalities), that therefore he’s also damning an innocent person to false imprisonment. Is this the case? I think not. The attorney should fight hard to protect even a guilty person’s rights, but I fail to see why they deserve to be fought for a verdict that the attorney and guilty person alike know is not true.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Suppose a defense attorney (for the sake discussion, let’s call him Mr. Smith) knows his client is guilty of something like rape; and this attorney, without breaking any laws of the court, is able to achieve a “not guilty” verdict in court. Said rapist then goes out and rapes another person. Did Mr. Smith do anything morally wrong? Is he partially responsible for the second rape?

It is the job of the defense attorney to force the government to prove it’s case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not their job to get their clients off the hook.

Forcing the state to prove it’s case not only protects the rights of the defendant, it also serves to protect our rights as well.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[EphelDuath]

Often there is an amount of evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” that defense attorneys can tamper with by using legalistic tricks. For instance, if a murder weapon is found and the attorney is able to prevent this from being presented at trial because it was obtained illegally.

Now, I’m not saying police should be able to obtain evidence illegally and suffer no repercussions, but I’m demonstrating here that the attorney is able to exclude evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt – thus allowing a dangerous person to be set free and hurt others. Is this not sinful or at least troublesome?

 

[Langdell]

Often there is an amount of evidence “beyond reasonable doubt” that defense attorneys can tamper with by using legalistic tricks. For instance, if a murder weapon is found and the attorney is able to prevent this from being presented at trial because it was obtained illegally.

Now, I’m not saying police should be able to obtain evidence illegally and suffer no repercussions, but I’m demonstrating here that the attorney is able to exclude evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt – thus allowing a dangerous person to be set free and hurt others. Is this not sinful or at least troublesome?

The technical term for what you’re referring to in your first paragraph is the “exclusionary rule.” It’s a rule that was mostly developed in the mid-20th century. It provides that evidence that the police obtained illegally (e.g., by an unconstitutional search) cannot be used in court.

I can explain the policy behind the rule and leave it up to others to decide whether it’s appropriate. The policy is that police won’t make any real effort not to infringe the rights of suspects unless the police know in advance that any improperly obtained evidence will be thrown out.

.

 

[LilyM]

The technical term for what you’re referring to in your first paragraph is the “exclusionary rule.” It’s a rule that was mostly developed in the mid-20th century. It provides that evidence that the police obtained illegally (e.g., by an unconstitutional search) cannot be used in court.

I can explain the policy behind the rule and leave it up to others to decide whether it’s appropriate. The policy is that police won’t make any real effort not to infringe the rights of suspects unless the police know in advance that any improperly obtained evidence will be thrown out.

.

Exactly. Police at times require search warrants to enter premises and look for evidence of crimes. Why? Because without such requirements they can literally enter anyone’s house at any time for no good reason at all. The purpose here is to protect the rights of property owners not to have police turn up on their doorstep willy-nilly.

Now note that there are plenty of exceptions, and plenty of circumstances where police don’t need a warrant - however, they DO need good reason - I think in the US the term most often used is ‘probable cause’. Again, that is to protect the rights of innocent people who might otherwise be stopped and they or their property searched or confiscated on a whim.

Any evidence excluded on such bases is not excluded because of tricksy lawyers, they are excluded because of incompetent police who breach the guidelines that they are required to follow in order to protect our rights. The police procedure guidelines aren’t there simply to make their job difficult, they’re there for perfectly good reasons. Apart from the reasons already given, some procedures are there to make sure evidence isn’t tampered with by police themselves, for example, or to ensure that an accused isn’t coerced into a false confession or led to it because of lack of understanding of their rights.

As for defending someone who is guilty and admits guilt. Well, even if someone admits to some heinous crime, do you honestly think imprisonment is the best thing - or even a good thing - for them in most circumstances? Having worked briefly in a criminal law firm last year, and seen jails from the inside on numerous occasions as a result, not to mention getting to know criminals on a professional basis, I have good reason to have severe doubts as to its being a good thing for pretty much anyone.

 

[camerong]

As for defending someone who is guilty and admits guilt. Well, even if someone admits to some heinous crime, do you honestly think imprisonment is the best thing - or even a good thing - for them in most circumstances? Having worked briefly in a criminal law firm last year, and seen jails from the inside on numerous occasions as a result, not to mention getting to know criminals on a professional basis, I have good reason to have severe doubts as to its being a good thing for pretty much anyone.

I agree with much of what you have written except this. Serial rapists, along with many other types of criminals, need to be put in prison, and defense attorneys may keep them out of jail. And, of course, criminals in general need to be punished, whether that means incarceration or not, for their sake and ours.

As has been noted below, the real reason that an attorney can morally defend a guilty person is that it is necessary as part of the system of justice. We as a society feel that this system protects us far more than it harms us, and we cannot separate its protections from its harms. In addition to reasons given below, another reason an attorney can morally represent a person who privately admits to the crime is that even people who commit crimes are entitled to certain legal rights that only an attorney can preserve, and if a client hides information from his attorney, the attorney cannot provide competent representation.

To turn this debate from the secular to spiritual… While we certainly have a duty to ensure justice and peace, I imagine that God is more offended by us convicting our brothers when they are innocent than by us excusing them when guilty. After all, Christ gave no parables about failing to punish, but many about judging. So if we must err on one side, let us be too easy on the accused. Further, as our human tendency is overwhelmingly to leap to judgement, if our system overlooks guilt, this may only result in a fair balance when tempered with our primal thirst for the blood of the accused.