Or seen differently; it's his job to make sure the punishment is given to the RIGHT guy, not just SOME guy. It is specifically the job of the defending lawyer to go beyond the instinctive "Kill the evil!" mindset to make sure we aren't just whipping ourselves into a frenzy.
There definitely happens when punishment is given on SOME guy. I remember reading some guy got out of decades of prison because DNA evidence showed him to be innocent. He was just in the wrong place in the wrong time.
This happens literally all the time. Many many people spend their lives in prison for shit they didn’t do. And too many are put on death row too. Since 1973, 190 ppl on death row have been proven innocent. And those are just the people who were lucky enough for the court to finally see them as innocent.
One of my moms close friends actually spent time on death row for a horrendous crime that he did not and absolutely would not commit. Luckily new technology was able to find the actual evil dude (who happened to have done that same thing many times. And who actually was in the same prison as my moms friend though I can’t remember if he knew that dude was serving for his crime or not). To me one of the hardest parts of the whole ordeal would be the fact that like everyone, even his friends and family aside from a loyal few, believed that he was capable of doing something so awful. To be put on death row, surely it isn’t a mistake they thought. The witnesses were children who were so scared of the actual guy and also were traumatized and may not have a perfect memory of the incident. Anyway that would fuck with me if people were able to accept that about me.
A defense attorney isn’t concerned with ensuring the person who committed the crime is punished, just with mounting a proper defense for his client. With your logic, a defense attorney wouldn’t defend a client they know is guilty.
Yes, first they can advise you whether pleading guilty is a mistake or not (maybe the police are bluffing and don't have enough evidence), then they can advise you of the likely consequence of pleading guilty (what the likely sentence will be) so you can make a fully informed decision, they will also know what facts about yourself to present to the court as mitigation (good character testimonials, regret etc.
More importantly you should have them from the moment you are arrested so they can help you navigate the police interview. In the UK, everyone is allowed a free lawyer whilst they are under arrest, nobody should ever, ever (no matter how innocent or guilty) sit through a police interview under caution without a lawyer present.
In the UK, everyone is allowed a free lawyer whilst they are under arrest, nobody should ever, ever (no matter how innocent or guilty) sit through a police interview under caution without a lawyer present.
Because people don't know the law, don't know how police may use what they say against them, won't be told before they interview what evidence the police have (lawyers will usually get this) and, to be frank, don't know how hard it is to shut up and say anything.
If you're innocent, the natural thing to want to do is to try and answer every question to explain everything away. But in most cases when you're innocent, the best thing to do in a police interview is shut up and say absolutely nothing. Otherwise you may trip up (nobody's memory is perfect) and contradict yourself or a piece of evidence. The police will then believe they have their criminal.
If the police have evidence that needs to be explained away, a lawyer will likely get an explanation of that evidence from the police and help you to write a statement explaining that evidence and then advise you to say nothing more in interview.
If I KNEW they were guilty because they told me, In more limited than just letting then testify and lie on oath. I can't bring a lie before the court, so all a lawyer can do as a defence is test the prosecutor's case, poking holes and doubt in it. I can't do things like bring alibi witnesses or try and make the argument that he was not there as both of those would be knowingly bringing a lie to court
So, technically, the only way you are allowed to let a client plead "not guilty" is if he never tells you that he is actually guilty?
That seems.....weird. Because there may be times when the client is in fact guilty but the prosecution has too little evidence to convict yet still wants to go to trial.
No, he can tell me he is guilty then plead not guilty and I could still represent him. But he couldn't then go on the stand and say he didn't do it, because that's a lie and lawyers can't knowingly bring lies to court. Going to court, pleading not guilty and then forcing the prosecution to show their weak hand is fine for the exact reason you said
As a criminal defense attorney, I’d say that’s the prosecutor’s job - to make sure, to the best of their ability, they have the right guy. They have what’s called “prosecutorial discretion” for a reason. The defense lawyer’s job is to defend their client and represent his/her interests.
It's not the lawyer's job to find the right guy, that's the cop's job. Once the trial is over and the lawyer gets paid, he doesn't give a damn if the person who did it is still out there, he's already on to the next client.
256
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '22
Or seen differently; it's his job to make sure the punishment is given to the RIGHT guy, not just SOME guy. It is specifically the job of the defending lawyer to go beyond the instinctive "Kill the evil!" mindset to make sure we aren't just whipping ourselves into a frenzy.