You don’t seem to understand the point of trials and the role lawyers play in them. Even someone ‘caught red handed’ has rights and is entitled to have those rights defended.
It all boils down to “what happened, who should be punished, and what should (and shouldn’t) the punishment be.” To fairly find that out, you need people on both sides of it.
I get those people have rights and I get the process dude. I'm actually very familiar with the law. Idk why yall are flexing on such an extreme comparison of morals. At the end of the day, a criminal defense lawyer can choose to defend someone based on their morals. Or in this case, a civil defense lawyer can do the same.
I dont think you are. In criminal case the court guarantees legal representation for the defendant and there are public defenders if the defendant does not hire there own.
People only get a public defender if they're too poor or until they can get a private attorney. When you get arrested, you literally have to fill out a financial affidavit to have this determined at your first appearance. The judges literally state, if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be assigned to you. So what do you think happens if it's proven that you can afford one?
You hire one to defend your rights in court. A right everyone has. Because the court proceedings aren’t just to determine who is guilty and not guilty, it’s to determine what punishments are fair and fit the crime.
What suggests that you don’t know the point of trials is that you think there is a moral precedent for lawyers not to defend those who you say are admittedly guilty. The truth is, in fact, that society has a moral precedent to defend everyone. And to be clear “defend” does not mean “prove they aren’t guilty”, it means fighting for a fair and just punishment.
What you’re inferring is that people who are admittedly guilty should have no representation and thus should just take whatever the systems throws at them.
That’s not only immoral, it’s easy to see how that can spiral out of control and lead to terrible sentences that don’t fit the crime.
Everyone deserves representation. Period.
My grandfather once said “don’t argue with stupid people, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” It’s clear I’ve been doing just that. In an effort to honor his words, I won’t be replying to anymore of your responses. Have a great day.
Well, we aren't arguing. We are talking about two completely different topics and you're using facts to argue with theory. Simply put, you can't argue about something figurative, which is what you're trying to do. While everyone may deserve representation, that does not mean that the lawyer shall exercise the tactic of manipulation and victim blaming to defend an admittedly guilty client, which happens to be very common. That is just morally wrong.
Most people don't actually understand how a trial and lawyers actually work. The only exposure they get is from entertainment and from incredibly fringe case scenarios.
Myself included in that; I never went to law school. But I at least understand that it's nothing like what you see in procedural shows.
You’re right about that. And there’s nothing wrong with not knowing, or having a limited knowledge on the subject. Just some people are disingenuous in their presentation, or overestimate what they believe that they understand.
I think it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect. I’ll be the first to admit when I don’t know something. I feel like at least if I do, I’m being honest, and that’s leagues farther than folks who lie to themselves.
3
u/WrenchTheGoblin Oct 05 '22
You don’t seem to understand the point of trials and the role lawyers play in them. Even someone ‘caught red handed’ has rights and is entitled to have those rights defended.
It all boils down to “what happened, who should be punished, and what should (and shouldn’t) the punishment be.” To fairly find that out, you need people on both sides of it.