Lets say defendant swears up and down he didn't do a crime like rape of a child, but later informs his lawyer that he is paying that he did, and defense lawyer mounts a excellent defense and wins the case. How can a person sleep at night knowing his client is guilty.
2007-10-17 06:40:21 · 14 answers · asked by cook90022 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
By knowing that our system of justice requires that every person accused of a crime get a zealous defense. If attorneys start doing a bad job so as to ensure their guilty clients get convicted, those attorneys would then get sued for malpractice by those very clients, and faith in the justice system would decline. In addition, it is not the fault of the defense attorney if the prosecutor failed in his or her duty to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
2007-10-17 06:45:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
How can a prosecutor sleep at night believing that there's a real chance that the person they're accusing DIDN'T do it. I'd rather know that the system is underinclusive (i.e. some guilty go free) than overinclusive (i.e. some innocent are convicted).
But the situation you're talking about rarely rarely happens. If it does, the lawyer almost always encourages the defendant to plead guilty, if the defendant knows what's good for him (not because it helps the lawyer sleep at night, but because it's in the defendant's best interests to plead--he'll get a lighter sentence than at trial, he may be transferred to prison sooner to avoid the hell that is the county jail, he may avoid other collateral consequences...). In other cases, the reason that the defense attorney is going forward is because (a) the defendant, while guilty, simply isn't guilty of the offense charged (which may be trumped up), (b) there was some procedural irregularity or overreach by the police that should result in an acquittal (the integrity of the system keeps EVERYONE safe from the overwhelming power of the Government), or (c) the defendant just needs their day in court.
93-97% of all criminal charges end with a plea of guilty by the Defendant. That's because most of the time, the defendant is guilty of SOMETHING (although perhaps not the charges brought) when he is arrested/charged by the police. Assuming that sometimes the cops do get it wrong, and the defendants who go to trial actually believe they're innocent, you can see how rare your example happens.
(Also note that the conviction rate at trial is also very high -- I would speculate at 80-90%. So, there's a 99.6% chance that someone chargedb y the cops will be convicted or plead guilty, to something. Assuming some actual innocent people in there, you can really see how rare this instance is.)
2007-10-17 14:01:40 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Two things -- first, in the US, everyone is entitled to a legal defense -- and many lawyers take comfort in knowing that their first duty is to the Constitution and the legal system, even if that means criminals sometimes go free.
Second, even if a lawyer knows the person is guilty -- they cannot ethically say the person is innocent -- that's just not allowed -- but what they can do is make the prosecution follow every rule and requirement to prove the person guilty -- and if the prosecution drops that ball, that's on the prosecution's head.
That being said -- many defense attorneys only take cases where they believe justice would be served by an acquittal -- or where the person is actually innocent.
2007-10-17 13:53:48 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Lawyers are there to ensure the rights of their client are not violated. Even a guilty person has rights. The lawyer does have an obligation to protect these rights, regardless of guilt or innocence. If he doesn't do an acceptable job, the suspect can appeal the decision by arguing inadequate defense.
With that said, I agree. I know I could never defend a guilty person. We just need to have faith in the prosecutors.
2007-10-17 13:45:42 · answer #4 · answered by trooper3316 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Lawyers are ethically bound to provide the best defense possible, and to let the judge or jury decide based on the facts presented. The alternative, would be a system in which lawyers only represent those defendants whom they honestly believed to be innocent. So, the first hurdle for anyone accused of a crime, would be to convince some lawyer that they are worthy of representation. Under such a system, many would face trial without representation and surely be convicted. A system like that effectively takes the power to determine guilt or innocence out of the hands of judges and juries, and places it in the hands of lawyers. Is that really a better alternative to the current system?
2007-10-17 14:28:37 · answer #5 · answered by J P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A lot of lawyers argue for the BEST POSSIBLE SENTENCE for their clients. Don't forget that.
I know a lawyer who represented a guy guilty of killing a transgendered teen in Newark, CA a few years ago.
On his website, he touts the fact that he represented a defendant in the high-profile case, but he doesn't need to say that the person was innocent. That's not the point.
A lot of people know that they are going to be guilty, but they need someone to expose as many mitigating facts as possible.
2007-10-17 13:59:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thomas More, the patron saint of the legal profession, was persecuted and ultimately beheaded for standing up for his principles. During the days before his arrest, he continued to defend the right of the king to do certain things, leading his son-in-law, also a lawyer, to exclaim in exasperation "You'd even give the devil himself due process of law!" St. Thomas responded, "Yes I would, for mine own safety's sake. Take away due process of law and who among us could stand in the storm that would follow?"
Due process of law is the final guarantor of the liberty that Washington and his fellow patriots fought for. Many of them died for it. Lots more soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have died since then to protect our liberty, and as an attorney, I am proud to defend the legacy that they fought to defend. The lawyer stands as the final defender of life, liberty and property against the claim of the government that the defendant's life, liberty and property are forfeit. In order to take away the right to a zealous defense, you would have to pre-determine the guilt of the party, which would put an end to the presumption of innocence. And it would put an end to any thinking person's willingness to remain in this country as long as there is at least one nation on earth that has not become a police state.
It's not about guilt or innocence. It's about whether the government can PROVE guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminals don't go to jail for being guilty: they go to jail when the government proves beyond all reasonable doubt that they did the crime.
2007-10-17 16:23:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sometimes youre not arguing the question of guilt or innocence but the degree to which a person is guilty or innocent. Moreover, a trial is just a debate of what happened and what the court will recognize that happened. With any debate you almost never get to decide which side youre going to be on. Just you keep eating the steaks and nevermind how I'm killing the cows.
2007-10-17 13:50:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Lawyer is an advocate and not the judge. So, it is his job to bring forward fearlessly what ever his client intends without any prejudged opinion about the matter. His duty is to put the raw material of client in the legally finished presentable form. So, no guilt............its job.
2007-10-17 15:16:46 · answer #9 · answered by lawyer's Advice 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They sleep at night very soundly, on a great big pile of money.
2007-10-17 15:39:37 · answer #10 · answered by Hillary 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋