If picked could you argue in defense?

[Doctor Amadeus]

If charged to do so could you argue in defense of someone you dislike or even hated you felt was guilty?

[Darkeon]

I wouldn't. Then again, I didn't pick that as my career and job.

[Deleted]

I love to play devils advocate in theory but I'm not sure I could defend an actual rapist/murderer/capitalist if I had to

[Azadina]

What are they being charged of?

[Dezerte]

Probably not, I would not be fit for the job with such a bias.

[Darkeon]

I love to play devils advocate in theory but I'm not sure I could defend an actual rapist/murderer/capitalist if I had to

I'm sure one of those could reward you handsomely.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I love to play devils advocate in theory but I'm not sure I could defend an actual rapist/murderer/capitalist if I had to

Even to preserve justice and the right for it to be realized despite bias.

- - - Updated - - -

What are they being charged of?

Doesn’t matter but if it helps the worst YOU could imagine obviously not involving you.

[Deleted]

I'm sure one of those could reward you handsomely.

I am uninterested and will report his family for gulag relocation

[Deletedaccount1]

This is a good paper arguing why it is immoral to defend the guilty.

[Independent voter]

The court says everyone is entitled to a "strong and vigorous" defense no matter how guilty they are. If you look at this way a defense attorney is doing the court's work even if they know their client is guilty.

[Azadina]

Doesn’t matter but if it helps the worst YOU could imagine obviously not involving you.

I have another question. For those worst I can think of, do I need to do my best to get them off as defense (that's the legal point), Or can I "defend" them, as in, put on a show that I am defending them, but just barely leave it lacking, to make sure jail is their destination?

[Doctor Amadeus]

I have another question. For those worst I can think of, do I need to do my best to get them off as defense (that's the legal point), Or can I "defend" them, as in, put on a show that I am defending them, but just barely leave it lacking, to make sure jail is their destination?

No you need to give 100% or you are subverting justice. You can’t pull your punches. If you take it on.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a good paper arguing why it is immoral to defend the guilty.

It isn’t immortal and this paper is overly simplistic nonsense.

[Azadina]

Yes you need to give 100% or you are subverting justice. You can’t pull your punches. If you take it on.

I'd argue that the accused is trying to avoid justice. I'd just make sure justice is met, by the person paying for their crimes. That's if they are guilty anyway.

Killer for example walking free with clean record is not justice. It's failure of it.

[Xar226]

I do believe that it is the government's job to prove its case and everybody is entitled to a competent defense, so I would have no compunction against defending a guilty person in the general sense.

However, that doesn't mean that it's without limits. I wouldn't defend the guy who killed all those people in Las Vegas for example, had he lived.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I'd argue that the accused is trying to avoid justice. I'd just make sure justice is met, by the person paying for their crimes. That's if they are guilty anyway.

Killer for example walking free with clean record is not justice. It's failure of it.

That isn’t your call. If you are the defense attorney not only had you better get them innocent if you can you better be trying to get the victim to apologize for it if you can.

I personally could only do it if I didn’t hate the person.

- - - Updated - - -

I do believe that it is the government's job to prove its case and everybody is entitled to a competent defense, so I would have no compunction against defending a guilty person in the general sense.

However, that doesn't mean that it's without limits. I wouldn't defend the guy who killed all those people in Las Vegas for example, had he lived.

Yeah I would defend him if I could. For no other reason than to know when they gave him the needle there is no legal possibility for him in this world.

[Mistame]

Innocent until proven guilty. Not sure what the problem is.

[Azadina]

That isn’t your call. If you are the defense attorney not only had you better get them innocent if you can you better be trying to get the victim to apologize for it if you can.

I personally could only do it if I didn’t hate the person.

But if I'm the defense, it would be my call. If your freedom depended on me making stuff up, mix truth with lies, and bunch of race baiting like OJ case, I can choose not to do any of that. What could you do about it? Stand up and tell the judge "Your honor, my lawyer isn't making nonsense up and lying at every turn!"

[Boricha]

If I had reason to believe that they were guilty then no I wouldn't defend them, unless I was defending them against someone else who also wasn't trustworthy.

[Doctor Amadeus]

But if I'm the defense, it would be my call. If your freedom depended on me making stuff up, mix truth with lies, and bunch of race baiting like OJ case, I can choose not to do any of that. What could you do about it? Stand up and tell the judge "Your honor, my lawyer isn't making nonsense up and lying at every turn!"

You don’t have to make anything up that would be illegal. Even as their defense. However if you can use your mind to get it done and argue by destroying the argument against your client it’s your obligation if you take it on.

Otherwise your answer is NO you wouldn’t do it which is fine. But if you take it on you give 100% if you have a problem coping while doing so that’s what alcohol is for I’ve heard.

[Gaaz]

Sure, I would defend them. To the best of my ability of being impartial to the subject. But, and there is a big one, I would probably not try to play on jurisdiction nuances to set him/her free. For example (based on a real case btw) if the defendant was a politician, carrying a sighted semi automatic, long barrel rifle from a place of shooting with multiple fatalities, I would not try to justify his actions by the fact that police had no rights to search him or his car after a civil arrest, and therefore all evidence (video and testimonials) are void and in the eyes of the law he never carried anything. Believe it or not, this shit happened for real.