Revised question---why do laywers rep guilty ppl?

Question

I did post this question earlier & I thank all of you who responded. I guess I should have added more detail. If a person has been convicted and admitted to a crime, how can they years later say "I was insane" and get an att'y to represent them? Is this not a waste of tax payers $$$$

Answer 1

you maybe mixing certain scenarios up

If a person is convicted of a crime and sentence to prison, if they want a lawyer latter on to review the DNA evidence to see if he was falsely convicted that should not be a problem

if he is convicted in prison, and wants to try to reverse the conviction on insanity plea, it is not going to happen unless he has allot of monies to waste, no chance of winning

if the person admits guilt but has not been tried or convicted, he should still get a lawyer to ensure the state follows the proper procedure to convict a person if it goes to trial most of those cases where they admit guilt, it gets pleaded out no trial

Answer 2

The only way that this comes up "years later" is if the defendant has a successful appeal. The appeals court finds serious errors in the original trial and sends the whole thing back for a new trial.

In that case, the original verdict has been overturned, and the defendant is once again "innocent until proven guilty".

As for the lawyers who work on the appeal for a person that has been found guilty, they are working to make sure that our criminal justice system is fair and that serious legal errors are exposed so that innocent people don't go to prison or death row.

If you think that all people who are convicted are actually guilty and it is a waste of taxpayer money to review convictions on appeal, then I hope you will take the time to learn about the Innocence Project. Many people have been released when DNA evidence proved that they did not commit the crime they were convicted for.

Answer 3

In the inital case, a lawyer does not represent a guilty person-a person is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved in a court of law. if a person has been convincted, that doesn't necessarily mean they were guilty. DNA evidence has free'd a number of men on death row in various states, because it proved they did not commit the crime they were convicted of.
this is one reason why a lawyer represents the guilty. A lawyer may look at the justice of a sentence for an admitted crime-is it consitent with the norm--variety of reasons. And finally, in most cases it is not a waste of the taxpayers money --a citizen is guaranteed representation if he can not afford it when charged with a crime. Once convicted of that crime--any appeals--typically do not come from the government. there is no constitutional guarantee of an attorney for a convicted person.

Answer 4

I'm sorry, Asker, but this is a "straw" question. First things first: the insanity defense is CLAIMED in about 1% of criminal cases. Of the cases in which it is asserted, the defendant prevails on it in only about 10%. So, if my math is correct, only about 0.1% of all criminal defenses are acquitted on the ground of insanity. So you see, the success of the insanity defense isn't the epidemic that Hollywood, John Grisham (pox be upon him), and junk news make it out to be.

As to why convicted criminals get lawyers -- understand, preliminarily, that courts have the power to ASSIGN an attorney to represent such person. As far as I know, legal practice is the only profession whose members are REQUIRED to work for free (or very close to free) when told to do so by the court, as a condition of maintaining their license. If a judge told you you are representing Mr. So-and-so, you can't do anything about it; and short of your client trying to kill you, you have to provide him with the best possible defense.

What taxpayers pay these lawyers is a fraction -- in many states a small one -- of what they make in private practice. In some states, like New Jersey, an attorney may be forced to represent a criminal defendant even without this meager compensation, but completely for free. So trust me: money isn't the incentive here. Being forced to represent the person is the major reason, but some others include an attorney's interest in the legal issues presented by the case.

A conviction does not necessarily foreclose the issue of guilt, and neither does a confession. People tend to confess to a lot of things given sufficient incentive -- like a plunger shoved into their nether regions. Without you pointing to a specific -- and real -- case, I cannot tell you more. But, have you ever heard about more than a dozen people who were on death row in Illinois and were completely exonerated of their crimes? If it hadn't been for their lawyers, the State would have put all these innocent people to death. I wouldn't call the vindication of an innocent person a waste of taxpayers' $$ (two-dollar sign, not four).

Answer 5

Because that's the way the laws were written in order to prevent unfair trails. Sure there are guilty people who get to take advantage of the system in order to keep their freedom, but there are also innocent people who would otherwise not be able to defend themselves without free lawyers. Since we have no idea who is innocent and who is guilty (and I doubt many guilty people are going to admit this even to their lawyers!) its better to have the system in place to protect the innocent.

Answer 6

Yes, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. But they still have the right to an attorney.

Answer 7

It is a waste of taxpayer's money, but the lawyers still get paid. That is why they do it. $$$$$$$$$$

Answer 8

It's built into the legal system that way.

Answer 9

Yes it is.

Answer 10

its their job