Lawyers defending guilty people

[didymus]

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.

The so-called exclusionary rule* is beloved of movie and TV courtroom dramas but in real life there are so many exceptions to it that in real life defense attorneys are only rarely able to keep evidence out.

As for “technicalities” – those would be the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments to the Constitution, plus state constitutions and laws. Also, DAs are not above using “technicalities” to keep out evidence unfavorable to their case.

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?

What’s troublesome to me is that there is little or no brake on prosecutors. They have absolute discretion to decide whom to prosecute and which murderers and rapists will get long sentences and which short ones. It is not in their interest to prosecute the police or corrections system and most of all they can abuse the system and get away with it.
The way plea bargains are done allows them to suborn perjury by threatening to prosecute or offering to help a witness (to get parole, e.g.). Of course, to cover himself a DA will say, “Now, I want your truthful testimony about Didymus’s involvement [wink]”. Of course he doesn’t* know* that his witness is lying in the same sense that the defense knows that his client is guilty.

*for a defense attorny’s take, see “Yes, Virginia, There is an Exclusionary Rule”

 

[EphelDuath]

The exclusionary rule was just an example. I think it’s a fair rule, but it’s irrelevant to my point, which is that attorneys can get dangerous people acquitted. I don’t believe it’s in the criminal’s interest to be cut loose when they need help, nor do I think it’s honest that a defense attorney should seek a verdict that he himself knows is untrue.

But I’m probably repeating myself now.

 

[LilyM]

The exclusionary rule was just an example. I think it’s a fair rule, but it’s irrelevant to my point, which is that attorneys can get dangerous people acquitted. I don’t believe it’s in the criminal’s interest to be cut loose when they need help, nor do I think it’s honest that a defense attorney should seek a verdict that he himself knows is untrue.

But I’m probably repeating myself now.

At the risk of repeating myself as well - WHAT HELP? Just how many resources do you think the average prisoner has allocated to rehabilitation and addressing of the causes of their crime as opposed to simply building ever-thicker walls and ever-higher fences and hiring ever more guards to keep them locked in tight?

In my stupid legal system, someone convicted of a firearms offence is ineligible for many of the drug and alcohol treatment programs on offer within the prison system. So someone whose behaviour is related to drug or alcohol abuse is NOT getting the help they need under those circumstances. It’s insanity - anyone who has drug and alcohol problems no question needs rehab, regardless of the nature of their crime.

Far from getting any help, such a person is probably going to return to society a) embittered for the fact that they were denied treatment and b) more likely for that reason as well as their unaddressed drug and alcohol problems to reoffend than if they’d not been imprisoned but instead sought treatment in a civilian facility.

That’s just one of many examples of criminal justice systems shortchanging and denying badly-needed help to prisoners. The sad reality is a lot of them may as well be ‘cut loose’ for all the good that is achieved - to them or society - by their imprisonment.

And in case you hadn’t noticed, a lawyer never ever seeks a verdict of ‘innocent’. What they seek is a verdict of ‘not guilty’.

Now since guilt refers to a state of mind, heart and soul that no-one in a courtroom can ever truly know, it’s bleeding obvious that the expression ‘not guilty’ can only possibly be a very inaccurate shorthand. It means ‘guilt has not been proven as the law requires’.

And if guilt cannot in fact be proven as the law requires then why should any other verdict be sought than the correct one of ‘not guilty’? For one a verdict of ‘guilty’ would be a lie, guilt means ‘guilt HAS been proven as the law requires’, which is wrong if it has in fact not been.

 

[camerong]

And in case you hadn’t noticed, a lawyer never ever seeks a verdict of ‘innocent’. What they seek is a verdict of ‘not guilty’.

Now since guilt refers to a state of mind, heart and soul that no-one in a courtroom can ever truly know, it’s bleeding obvious that the expression ‘not guilty’ can only possibly be a very inaccurate shorthand. It means ‘guilt has not been proven as the law requires’.

And if guilt cannot in fact be proven as the law requires then why should any other verdict be sought than the correct one of ‘not guilty’? For one a verdict of ‘guilty’ would be a lie, guilt means ‘guilt HAS been proven as the law requires’, which is wrong if it has in fact not been.

I disagree slightly. Guilt does not always refer to a state of mind–there are many crimes for which intent is irrelevant (speeding or statutory rape in most states, for example). And in many other cases, the state of mind of the accused is really not in question–the real question is whether he or she committed the crime.

A better way of saying this is that a lawyer never seeks a verdict he or she knows to be false, because a verdict simply refers to the level of proof the prosecution has reached. A person may well be guilty, but if the prosecution has failed to prove this guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the person should go free. And, frankly, if the person is innocent, but the prosecution proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the person should be convicted. That’s how our system is designed to work, and there are no clearly superior alternatives. So it is really meaningless to talk about a lawyer seeking a verdict which is false. Sure, some unscrupulous attorneys may mislead the tribunal, conceal evidence, etc. But a defense attorney acting morally in defending a person he knows to have committed the crime will only seek to have the prosecution “meet their burden,” as it is said–the burden of proving each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Allowing the prosecution to obtain convictions with anything less–even for people who committed the crime for which they are charged–will lead to a break-down in the system and a loss of the rights of innocent people.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The exclusionary rule was just an example. I think it’s a fair rule, but it’s irrelevant to my point, which is that attorneys can get dangerous people acquitted. I don’t believe it’s in the criminal’s interest to be cut loose when they need help, nor do I think it’s honest that a defense attorney should seek a verdict that he himself knows is untrue.

Ephel,

I’ve been following this thread with interest. There is something, though, that I am unclear about in your position. You mention here (and above) that the verdict could be untrue. I’m not sure what you mean exactly.

The verdict (generally) means that the court of law considers or holds the defendant to be punishable or unpunishable under law. It doesn’t mean that the defendant is guilty or innocent morally, nor whether he is guilty or innocent objectively.

For example in a court of law one could plead “not guilty” to a charge – even though one was the person who did the act which is the basis of the charge – and not be lying under oath. The “not guilty” plea refers to one’s status under the law. Likewise, a “not guilty” verdict doesn’t necessarily mean that one didn’t do the act that one is accused of doing, but rather that one is not punishable under the law.

For a verdict to be untrue in the legal sense, as I understand it, would be for the verdict to be a “bad” verdict – a misapplication of the law or procedure. A human court verdict might also be faulty in an objective or moral sense – but that is due to the limitations of human justice. The court of Divine Justice still has to be satisfied in the end, though.

I am interested in your thoughts on the above,
thanks,
VC

 

[maggiemay2u]

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.

The same question crossed my mind as the other poster…where are you going to put those molesters? Treatment is unsuccessful in virtually all cases. Current laws in the majority of states severely limit where sex offenders can reside. Urban areas are a logistical nightmare for everyone involved. Your thoughts would be appreciated, really.

Prison, btw, can be a very good place for criminals, if the system is one based on merit and rehabilitation, not one-size-fits-all sentences. Determinate sentencing, which was the cause celeb of the my liberal associates in the 70’s and 80’s, has been disastrous from a social psychology/criminal justice standpoint.

 

[manualman]

Perhaps I watch too many TV shows, but my perception is that the legal profession has degenerated to the point where the goal is no longer “Do your best to make sure the trial is completely fair and just” and is now “do whatever it takes to get a win for your client, except these few specific items on this here ethics list.”

I have more personal experience with lawsuit lawyers than criminal types, but the ones I have met line up with the worst of the TV types.

 

[Zeebo]

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.

I seem to recall Christ standing between an accused criminal (an adulterer) and his society’s justice system (a mob ready to stone her to death).

You seem to presume that an attorney will know that his client is guilty. How? Even if a client tells his attorney he did it, how trustworthy is that confession? People lie. People who become the subject of criminal prosecution tend to lie. People lie to protect others, they lie because they think if they just admit to the crime (even though they didn’t do it) they’ll get off lighter than if they fight it. Clients can’t always be trusted. Defense lawyers usually don’t know what really happened any better than the prosecutor, judge, or jurors. They know what the defendant tells them, and what the evidence shows, but that’s it.

Our system of justice is imperfect. Guilty people go free sometimes, and innocent people go to jail sometimes. Our system works best when the lawyers on all sides argue vigorously on behalf of their clients. The justice system is designed to determine legal guilt–whether the evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question. The justice system is not designed to determine whether in actual fact the defendant committed the crime. That is a significant distinction.

(I’d add that Mortimer’s Rumpole operates within the English system of justice, in which I believe barristers are more constrained than in the American system. I believe in England if a client confesses to his attorney, the attorney is ethically restricted from proceeding with a defense. I may be wrong, but I believe that is the case.)

The guilty man who goes free has not escaped judgment. He will face his judge, as we all will. Our attempt at justice in this life is flawed, and often filled with the same sort of hatred and vengeance that motivated the angry mob ready to stone the adulterer. Perfect justice and pefect mercy will have to wait until the hereafter, I’m afraid.

 

[lawRakesh]

Vi rådgiver om alt fra anpartsselskab og aktieselskab, opsigelse, erhvervslejekontrakt, ejendomshandel til arv, testamente, særeje og skilsmisse m.m

---

For høj husleje, Lejeforhøjelse, Erhvervslejekontrakt,Anpartsselskab