I mean, there's no real point in defending a person who everyone knows committed a crime because they've seen the evidence or actually saw him do it.
2006-11-05 09:49:19 · 10 answers · asked by Redeemer 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I know that they deserve justice under law. But look at the recent Saddam verdict. Everyone knew he was guilty. How could someone prove that he didn't do it?
2006-11-05 09:58:14 · update #1
The trick is to exploit loopholes and weaknesses in the State's Case to create reasonable doubt and ultimately an acquittal - if acquitted, the defendant cannot be retried thanks to double jeopardy.
2006-11-05 09:50:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because you have to have a trial so that the lawyer can ask "everyone" (the witnesses) exactly what they saw. Unless a crime is caught on video with a clear view of the person doing the crime you can't assume anything because humans can make mistakes and a good lawyer has to by questioning "everyone" can prove if a witness is accurate or not (and not just trying to frame someone).
2006-11-05 17:56:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
His or her lawyer has the job of making sure the defendant gets a fair trial. Not to get the person off necessarily.
If all District Attorney;s were honest and truthful, there would never be a "not guilty: verdict.
NOTE: The finding is "Not Guilty",it's not "Innocent"
2006-11-05 17:54:30 · answer #3 · answered by Nort 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because even the guilty people deserve a defense, our Constitution guarantees it. And after all a good defense attorney can get a better sentence or maybe there were special situations that called for that kind of behavior. but mostly because every man is entitled to their day in court with representation.
2006-11-05 17:53:10 · answer #4 · answered by sosueme534 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets be honest here. The lawyer gets paid whether the defendant is guilty or not.
2006-11-05 17:51:04 · answer #5 · answered by hharry_m_uk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I guess just by protecting their rights . As we all saw during the O.J. trial , you could just see the looks of the faces of some of his attorneys when it became evident that he did it ; and I saw disbelief on a few of them, incredulously , when O.J. was found innocent . On the other hand -there are those who know and don't care .
2006-11-05 17:53:25 · answer #6 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think in a democratic world obviose guilt means an automatic guilty sentance.
Looks like more and more people are starting to forget innocent until proven.
2006-11-05 17:58:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the fame and money. Also the challenge of doing what everyone thought couldn't be done...winnning in a case like that.
2006-11-05 17:58:10 · answer #8 · answered by Mariposa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
just do there best and try to get the person to get a plea deal
2006-11-05 17:52:51 · answer #9 · answered by laura G 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they have no soul
2006-11-05 17:56:22 · answer #10 · answered by rach534 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋