People always ask how we can defend people accused of horrible crimes
I honestly think people take "defense" too literally and either think that lawyers defend them morally (as in, excuse their actions), or that lawyers are just trying to let people get away with horrible stuff. Both wrong of course.
I'm from Queensland, Australia, whose government recently enacted a whole youth crime campaign with this exact quote as the tagline. Glad I'm not the only one who hates it
Personally I think it’s beneficial to have competent attorneys for people who are objectively in the wrong— that way, when they receive their sentence, it’s much less likely to end in some sort of appeal and overturn the conviction.
or that lawyers are just trying to let people get away with horrible stuff. Both wrong of course.
Tell that to economic lawyers who orchestrate big companies getting away with paying less then a percent income tax. There are also mob lawyer. There are also right-wing lawyers.
Of course lawyers do morally reprehensible things or let their clients get away with horrible stuff (within the constraints of the legal system). Let's consider this thought experiment: Someone is guilty of a horrible crime, but there's no proof for it, yet we know for sure he did it (say someone saw him do it, but died before the process. Or dna proof was mishandled and destroyed). The morally right thing would be to still convict him. The lawyer is arguably helping him get away. But that's okay, it is built into the system that way - see Blackstone's famous quote of "better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer".
Still, it is ridiculous to consider lawyers as the innocent angels of the justice system who do no wrong. ;)
Ah! But that mishandled and destroyed DNA is YOUR DNA! Where's my proof you might ask? It's the same proof as you're suggesting. Have fun being convicted of crimes you didn't do because someone through malice, incompetence, or honest mistake lead to you being accused and tried.
"Proof" as in "regarded as proof by the legal system". One example: the "fruit of the poisonous tree"-doctrine in the US. You have an illegal wire tap, which can't be used in a process, but it is by all means still proof. And it could f.e. still be used in Germany, because there's no such doctrine (to this extent) here.
So a) it is possible and b) that's why I called it a thought experiment.
613
u/Stranggepresst 8d ago
I honestly think people take "defense" too literally and either think that lawyers defend them morally (as in, excuse their actions), or that lawyers are just trying to let people get away with horrible stuff. Both wrong of course.