Anders Breivik Defence

[smelltheglove]

it's very tempting to throw breivik under the bus, no trial, just a bullet in the back of the head. his actions are beyond description, they are so horrible.

however, we need to put him through the legal process. at least attempting to be impartial and judge on evidence (in this case pretty overwhelming) is morally right, even if it might seem unnecessary or painful

[fizzbob]

idiot... thats ridiculous...arguing that defending actions like this doesnt mean you agree with them just shows that u do not have any conscience...
u can only strongly defend your client in a trial if you are convinced of his "innocence" or share his ideals which in last case means that u are already cognitively fucked up and should be thrown to jail altogether with your client...

not true, a good defense lawyer sees it all as a game he will win at any cost.

he is responsible because he put himself into that position in teh first place, but after he does it would mean his livelihood to not do everything he could for his client.

the good people who realize they made a mistake will step down and even that isn't as easy as it sounds. sometimes it opens them up for charges to be brought against them

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 08:55 AM ----------

it's very tempting to throw breivik under the bus, no trial, just a bullet in the back of the head. his actions are beyond description, they are so horrible.

however, we need to put him through the legal process. at least attempting to be impartial and judge on evidence (in this case pretty overwhelming) is morally right, even if it might seem unnecessary or painful

here is the problem. when someone says they did something horrible like this, they want attention, they really did it and/or they're crazy

a trial does no good in this situation. it gives them fame and a chance to get away with it.

our justice system has been broken from the start. the people involved are emotional about their jobs and they can't be. that's why it fails. the justice system rarely does any good.

[Deleted]

Or it could mean that you as a lawyer have professional ethics and realize that ethically speaking, everyone, no matter how horrible their crime, deserves proper defense. Anything else is just a show trial.

well, yeah you could argue that way... but then you would also have to be consequent and defend genocides as stalin, hitler or mao...
when do you draw the line?do you want to defend everything?

[Reeve]

well, yeah you could argue that way... but then you would also have to be consequent and defend genocides as stalin, hitler or mao...
when do you draw the line?do you want to defend everything?

Those deserve defense too. I'm not saying they're likely to be successful defenses, but if we don't even try to defend them, we aren't meting out justice, but merely vengeance. A civilized society should always attempt justice, not vengeance.

[Deleted]

Those deserve defense too. I'm not saying they're likely to be successful defenses, but if we don't even try to defend them, we aren't meting out justice, but merely vengeance. A civilized society should always attempt justice, not vengeance.

so what would u think would be the right justice in those cases? death or jail?or do u have another idea?because killing someone in consequence of his crime to me more sounds like vengeance in any case...

[Reeve]

so what would u think would be the right justice in those cases? death or jail?or do u have another idea?because killing someone in consequence of his crime to me more sounds like vengeance in any case...

Justice is meting out punishments or acquittals according to a legal system. The system attempts to determine the guilt or innocence of the parties involved, and does not presume a party to be guilty before judgment. Vengeance is not systematic.

The actual punishment involved doesn't enter into what I'm talking about. Death can be determined justice. So can Prison, or acquittal. It's the system that makes it justice, not the outcome.

[Deleted]

not true, a good defense lawyer sees it all as a game he will win at any cost.

he is responsible because he put himself into that position in teh first place, but after he does it would mean his livelihood to not do everything he could for his client.

the good people who realize they made a mistake will step down and even that isn't as easy as it sounds. sometimes it opens them up for charges to be brought against them

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 08:55 AM ----------



here is the problem. when someone says they did something horrible like this, they want attention, they really did it and/or they're crazy

a trial does no good in this situation. it gives them fame and a chance to get away with it.

our justice system has been broken from the start. the people involved are emotional about their jobs and they can't be. that's why it fails. the justice system rarely does any good.

what do you mean by the good people who realize they made a mistake? do you mean the perpetrator or the lawyer? and regarding which action will they step down?

[Huntingbear_grimbatol]

They're not there to defend his actions or try to getting him out of jail or anything like that, are you honestly thinking that?
As any lawyer, their job is to make sure his rights (even if he deserves them or not) is being held 100% in court. Making sure that he's punished by the LAW and not the induvidual court or judge(s). It's never any lawyers job to get someone out of trouble, their job is to make sure the rights of their clients is followed in line with the law. Yes sometimes lawyers doing their job can get someone out of jail or interegation but that's 99% of the time because the police or state hasn't solid enough evidence to keep someone or put someone on trial. Once on trial it's up to the lawyers to make sure that their client is being judged objectivly and again, within the law.

Myself, would I've taken the job to be his lawyer if I had the qualifications? Probablly not, but that's because I had friends on that island one of them died. If I wasn't directly and/or personally invalid to do the job I'd accept the job, there's nothing wrong with being a lawyer for people who've done horrible acts of crime and terror. As to WHY someone would take the job? Well, in some cases they get asked to do so. It's a chance to test themselves at something they find enjoyable enough to do for a living (court system/ being a lawyer), if you were a football player in the 3rd division and got an offer to the top league you'd surely want to try for it. Horrible comparasment yes, but people still want to challange themselves... humans are humans.


*edit*
After reading many of the posts I'm starting to doubt in humanity, once again.
A lawyers job is to protect their clients rights within the lines of the (damn) law, if you get arrested to the police station and your lawyer gets you out it's because he or she did their job correctly and followed the LAW. In this case it's already in court, none of the defenders are trying to get him out, defend his actions or anything of that sort. ALL they're doing it making sure that the court isn't breaking the clients (Breivik in this case) rights as they are written in the LAW.

(sorry for bold, had to be said.)

[Deleted]

STRAWMAN ALERT

i'm gonna say this one time. if you don't get it after one time, you're not going to get it because you don't understand or you're intentionally busting out your weakass strawman.

i never once said people do not deserve the right to be defended. i never once said that a defense lawyer should not do his job.

now that the FACTS are out of the way, i DARE you to argue that it's RIGHT to get a murderer off on a technicality, it's RIGHT to keep your client the child molester out of prison because he's too short, it's RIGHT to do anything that would be considered a loophole to defend anyone

You'd better reread your own posts and take some sedatives...

---------- Post added 2012-05-01 at 11:15 PM ----------

idiot... thats ridiculous...arguing that defending actions like this doesnt mean you agree with them just shows that u do not have any conscience...
u can only strongly defend your client in a trial if you are convinced of his "innocence" or share his ideals which in last case means that u are already cognitively fucked up and should be thrown to jail altogether with your client...

Calling someone an idiot following by utter nonsence is kinda self-pwn.

[saffi]

idiot... thats ridiculous...arguing that defending actions like this doesnt mean you agree with them just shows that u do not have any conscience...
u can only strongly defend your client in a trial if you are convinced of his "innocence" or share his ideals which in last case means that u are already cognitively fucked up and should be thrown to jail altogether with your client...

Infracted

what is this..i don't even..

[iceberg265]

If I were a lawyer, I don't think I could defend someone who I knew for a fact committed a murder. If I thought they were innocent or wasn't sure, definitely. But if the person flat out told me they did it or whatever then I would have to resign or not take the case.