why do lawyers defend criminals when not blackmailed?

[Lochton]

unless you're a state defender. It's decent money, but not for some of the people they are expected to defend.

Aye, I know. A friend of mine is in the US. She is okay with the money but some of the cases just makes her wish she had a different branch.

[exochaft]

i think its funny that the western public thinks people have rights which are just given to them for free.

Well, that's kind of the point, at least in the US. The rights are considered God-given or Natural rights, basically all humans have these rights innately by just existing, they are rights of the citizens to be protected by the government... they are not provided by the government nor can they be denied by the government. Until the US Constitution, every government was basically God, the government having the power to provide rights as well as take them away whenever it felt like it or 'needed' to. For this topic specifically, this is where the 6th Amendment comes into play when it comes to legal representation (although the 5th is applicable, as well, on some points).

I know some people here think it's all about the money when it comes to criminal defense, and in some cases it might be. From what I've gleaned from the few lawyer friends I do have, the only times the money is great is if you're defending high-profile cases (of which there are very few). Otherwise, the money, fame, and political power is on the prosecutor side of things. As someone else said, most criminal cases don't even make it to court and are settled outside of court, and that's usually best for both parties involved, as well as the cheaper option typically. It's not like the lawyer TV shows, where almost everything is dramatized, blown out of proportion, or downright illegal if done in the real world. If you picked a random case to make into a TV show, it'd be the most bone-dry thing you've ever watched.

[PC2]

i dont really know how law works, but if there's a criminal that is about to be sentenced and they hire someone to defend them, doesn't that person think they might be doing something morally wrong defending such a person to begin with? I know the horror stories of criminal organizations blackmailing these people and in those instances there's not much choice, and I generally mean unaffiliated crooks.

Even if you get paid, isn't that a sin or evil if that person really is guilty of something and you used your cunning to let them go or deserve a lesser sentence?

No, because the lawyer always has a fiduciary duty to the defendant that takes priority over their personal opinion.

[Zython]

B...because it's their job...

[Calfredd]

We have CmdrShep for jocks, cheerleaders, Mass Effect, and politics, and we have Tsugunai for random Off-topic. Almost feels like they're the same person.

[Ripster42]

this doesn't say anything about said lawyer knowing guilt.

The title of the thread, "Why do lawyers defend criminals." The title of the thread is not, "Why do lawyers defend accused criminals."

[Ripster42]

No, because the lawyer always has a fiduciary duty to the defendant that takes priority over their personal opinion.

You know, I don't think I'd ever seen fiduciary used this way. I had thought it was always pertaining to ethical obligations around money. Learn something new and what not.

[Flarelaine]

Because they are officers of the court and as part of that role it is their oath to see that justice is done.

Oh, I agree. But if I was a lawyer and I knew my client was guilty, I would have to work against justice.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The title of the thread, "Why do lawyers defend criminals." The title of the thread is not, "Why do lawyers defend accused criminals."

And the legal system is based on "Innocent until proven guilty". If they haven't been found guilty yet...then they are still just accused criminals.

[Ripster42]

And the legal system is based on "Innocent until proven guilty". If they haven't been found guilty yet...then they are still just accused criminals.

Right, so in the thought experiment of this thread, we're assuming the lawyer knows his client is guilty. Because the title. Otherwise, this thread is beyond stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I agree. But if I was a lawyer and I knew my client was guilty, I would have to work against justice.

Justice requires a fair trial. In an adversarial system (which the US has, I don't know about hungary) that's impossible to achieve w/out competent representation.

[cuafpr]

money and its how the law works... its also why i decided not to become a lawyer. I knew i could never defend someone i felt was guilty or even admitted guilt.

[ravenswood]

Thread should have been over here - and surely OP could have found that out by using google.

I like the "isn't that a sin or evil if that person really is guilty of something" bit. Not sure if incredibly naive or..well...the "t" word....

- - - Updated - - -



Pffff...they don't need to be evil. Just be obese, smoke, drink, have a dangerous hobby ...let them all die (/s - in case anyone needed it...you never know)



Then, just like a judge is not supposed to pass out a revenge sentence or a priest isn't supposed to turn you in after confession, they still technically should do their best to defend the client...

Doesn't mean that client will walk.

Apparently it is the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorn...ient_privilege - which I could find out, even without being an American citizen or even a native speaker (directed again at OP)

Yes I know that. it’s weird that you just make that assumption about me considering the context of the post I replied to

- - - Updated - - -

Right, so in the thought experiment of this thread, we're assuming the lawyer knows his client is guilty. Because the title. Otherwise, this thread is beyond stupid.

- - - Updated - - -



Justice requires a fair trial. In an adversarial system (which the US has, I don't know about hungary) that's impossible to achieve w/out competent representation.

well fucking obviously that was the point of the OP. do you think he was asking why we defend people who MIGHT be guilty?

[Ripster42]

well fucking obviously that was the point of the OP. do you think he was asking why we defend people who MIGHT be guilty?

Read the first page. You might be clued in to what we're talking about and why.

[ravenswood]

Read the first page. You might be clued in to what we're talking about and why.

i did read the first page, i even posted there explaining what OP meant because bafflingly people like you somehow didn’t get it

[Ozyorkbourne]

i dont really know how law works, but if there's a criminal that is about to be sentenced and they hire someone to defend them, doesn't that person think they might be doing something morally wrong defending such a person to begin with? I know the horror stories of criminal organizations blackmailing these people and in those instances there's not much choice, and I generally mean unaffiliated crooks.

Even if you get paid, isn't that a sin or evil if that person really is guilty of something and you used your cunning to let them go or deserve a lesser sentence?

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt and as such, a defense must question the evidence presented for a conclusion to be drawn. Also you're assuming guilt for every charge?

[Noomz]

i dont really know how law works, but if there's a criminal that is about to be sentenced and they hire someone to defend them, doesn't that person think they might be doing something morally wrong defending such a person to begin with? I know the horror stories of criminal organizations blackmailing these people and in those instances there's not much choice, and I generally mean unaffiliated crooks.

Even if you get paid, isn't that a sin or evil if that person really is guilty of something and you used your cunning to let them go or deserve a lesser sentence?

It’s called innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If you can’t prove a crime, you cannot punish anyone. What would you have in its place? We still get innocent people punished, even with this system that should prevent that from happening.

- - - Updated - - -

i think its funny that the western public thinks people have rights which are just given to them for free.

Right for the people, from the people. So yeah, kinda.
Do you think I should feel indebted to someone over it?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Right, so in the thought experiment of this thread, we're assuming the lawyer knows his client is guilty. Because the title. Otherwise, this thread is beyond stupid.

So, you're saying you're not familiar with Tsuganai threads? :P

As far as the aupposed thought experiment goes, if the Lawyer knew absolutely 100% that his client was guilty, he/she should simply recuse themselves from representing that individual...but there are very few circumstances that a Lawyer would know that beyond all shadow of doubt.

[Jastall]

because thats a key part of the thought experiment

Then the thought experiment is worthless because a lawyer exists in a judicial setting, and juridically the only ones who can pronounce guilt are judges and juries, not lawyers.

A lawyer exists to represent the interests of their clients. Any other motivation ascribed to them is fabricated.

[Ripster42]

i did read the first page, i even posted there explaining what OP meant because bafflingly people like you somehow didn’t get it

I do get it. The whole reason I posted in this thread was because someone else didn't and I was pointing out the thread title assumed the lawyer knew their client was guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

As far as the aupposed thought experiment goes, if the Lawyer knew absolutely 100% that his client was guilty, he/she should simply recuse themselves from representing that individual...but there are very few circumstances that a Lawyer would know that beyond all shadow of doubt.

The lawyer needs to keep representing their client even if they know they committed the crime because the client needs to be able to be truthful with their attorney so they can receive the best possible representation.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The lawyer needs to keep representing their client even if they know they committed the crime because the client needs to be able to be truthful with their attorney so they can receive the best possible representation.

I'm talking about before agreeing to represent the defendant. Like, for example, the lawyer actually saw the guy do the crime he's being accused of.