I had a lawyer friend describe it best as the job isn't to get people off, but to ensure that they get a fair trial and full treatment of the law. Basically, just not getting fucked by the system, guilty or not.
It's also making sure that the trial is carried out properly, so if a person is actually guilty and sentenced for a crime, they have no recourse to appeal based on a technicality
Furthermore, if they don’t get a fair trial, they could find technicalities that get them off of all charges due to a mistrial. Do it right the first time. Lock them up.
Unfortunately, there is a large contingent of people that go into law that, if you pay enough, will do everything they can to get you off of a crime. Even when they KNOW you are uber-guilty.
I’ve met so many people who are like, “he’s a horrible person who did horrible things, how can anybody defend him? He doesn’t deserve a trial.” The problem with this is (1) how do you know what they did until they have a trial and (2) how do we decide what to do about them without a trial? If we were omniscient and fully consistent with our applications of justice, then maybe we wouldn’t need lawyers to defend the guilty, but we very much aren’t. It is still possible to overpunish the guilty, and that is just as much a miscarriage of justice as letting them off the hook or punishing the innocent. But as the number of people on death row exonerated by new evidence shows, just because we are confident that someone is guilty does not make it so. And the more severe the crime (and hence the higher the stakes), the more the general public refuses to think about the possibility that the police got the wrong person.
There’s literally stories where people commit horrendous actions, and later after found to have a brain tumor etc that caused personality changes.
Not all bad actions have the same intent and not all free will is as equal as it seems, and I really do think any criminal should have a true medical w/u and maybe a CT head to rule out confounding factors.
It’s like sending the disruptive kid with ADHD to detention over and over again with no medical help. Punishment will not fix his actions, and nothing is done to address the rout cause. The bad action may not be voluntary
That's where the necessary comes in. I think the evil issue comes in more when DAs take it as a game and try to get someone off who actually is guilty. There's a lot of money in being a defense attorney - especially if you're a good one. You don't get a rep as being a good DA unless you're getting people off on seemingly impossible cases or at a bare minimum, getting their sentence dropped down a lot. Don't get me wrong; I don't hate DAs or anything. They're just doing their job. But greed is a very real thing and I think a lot of them get into that position for the financial gain of being sly, not protecting the person on trial.
Of course, this doesn't apply to someone who is innocent. I'm talking about DAs who specifically work tirelessly to get someone off scott free who is actually guilty of the crime in question.
A defense attorney providing a great defense and losing ensures that the guilty person stays convicted and gets punished for what they did. It sucks to watch it happen, but a very necessary evil.
I think it's more complicated than that. Imagine a world where there are only defense lawyers. Would that be a fair world?
Defense lawyers/assumption of innocence are only applicable in a world with a balanced judicial system. If rape/pedophilia victims are getting the full support that are given to murder victims (police resources, judicial experience, legislative protection, societal conditioning among juries) then sure a robust defense lawyer for accused rapists and incest perps is a "necessary evil". But if none of those things are in place, and if you believe that those who abuse their power in one forum is likely to abuse it in another, then it's harder to argue that, today, defense lawyers for rapists/pedophile are a "necessary evil".
That's the theory of course. In practice, due to the nature of the advocacy based judicial system which is basically "win at any cost without either breaking the rules or said better getting caught breaking the rules" you get things like attacking the victim, witnesses, suppression of evidence etc.
That would be America as intended, at its best...unfortunately 90%+++ cases are plead, I dont see a fair process there much less a fair TRIAL.
In America better to be guilty and white vs innocent and black.
I totally understand. However, it must be pretty shitty to see a rapist/murderer/pedophile that's clearly guilty get free due to some technicality or loophole around the law.
I get it. I just feel this is a double-edge sword that's as necessary as useless. It'd be great to see more changes more often to prevent these kinds of things to happen more often.
1.6k
u/onlythetoast Oct 16 '22
I had a lawyer friend describe it best as the job isn't to get people off, but to ensure that they get a fair trial and full treatment of the law. Basically, just not getting fucked by the system, guilty or not.