How can someone with a good moral conscience work as a defense attorney? I mean, it's all very good and all when your client is in a morally ambigious area or a petty criminal.
But what about when you know that your client is guilty, say of rape, and you could get them off on a technicality? How can you sleep at night?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Everyone deserves certain rights and as a defense attorney, you are defending those rights. Its a reaffirmation that laws govern our country, even when it helps the guilty.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But what about when you know that your client is guilty, say of rape, and you could get them off on a technicality? How can you sleep at night?
It is partially because the guilty get off on technicalities that the police and prosecutors have to be so careful to respect our rights. I'm glad that they do.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
:::Looks through fingerss:::
:pops head up:
No rick roll?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But what about when you know that your client is guilty, say of rape, and you could get them off on a technicality? How can you sleep at night?
It is partially because the guilty get off on technicalities that the police and prosecutors have to be so careful to respect our rights. I'm glad that they do.
I also bet defense attorneys can sleep at night because they sometimes represent innocent people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
A defense attorney acquaintance of mine was recently elected District Attorney for my county. Now instead of running the risk of defending the guilty, he will soon run the risk of prosecuting the innocent.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Okay, fine. I'll bite. What does the title of this thread have to do with anything at all?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ha, ha! Made you look!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Except that the person who started the thread isn't a bot, which kind of ruined the surprise for me.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: But what about when you know that your client is guilty, say of rape, and you could get them off on a technicality? How can you sleep at night?
One question might be whether it's more important that the criminal and legal systems function properly, or that a specific person go to jail at any cost. Personally, I'd find it much more troubling if available legal procedures weren't used because attorneys didn't think their clients deserved them.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
But if I don't get my porn here, where else am I going to get it on the Internet?!?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
For some people that would be a real problem. But Nighthawk, I have faith that you are not one of those people.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: But what about when you know that your client is guilty, say of rape, and you could get them off on a technicality?
Aren't technicalities actually things like violations of our rights?
Like others have said, that's what keeps us all safe. Imagine for a moment that a judge let evidence in that was acquired questionably and the bad guy went to jail. Everyone's happy. The cops gets a bunch of pats on the back.
Now there's a case where he's less sure. So he follows all the rules and procedures to the letter. The guy gets acquitted. Now there's no handshakes and back slaps. Maybe a couple guys make comments about how obvious it was that the guy did it.
So when the next case comes along and it really looks like the guy probably did it, what incentive is there to follow the rules? And what if the cops find something incriminating in their maybe not quite legal search? How sure are you now that the guy was really guilty? How sure are you that it can't happen to you?
Occasionally letting bad guys off is better than locking up innocent people. The nice thing about criminals is that they usually give you a chance to catch them again later.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
One of the founding principles of the USA is a 'fair trial' whether guilty or innocent. This goes along with the presumption of innocents until proven guilty.
In a corrupt and government controlled court system, it is up to you to prove you didn't do it, and the ability to do that depends on available resources and political clout. In this system 'friends of the court' go free regardless of how guilty they are, and those who are not friends of the court go to jail even if it is know they are innocent.
How can you possibly get a fair trial when both your attorney and the prosecuting attorney are on the same side? Believe me, there are many countries in the world where this is the case.
So, an adversarial system is the only workable solution, and the burden of proof must be on the prosecution. A defense attorney is morally, ethically, and legally obligated to give you a thorough and vigorous defense. It doesn't matter if you are guilty, what matters is whether the prosecution can prove it.
Even now, in the name of politics and judicial expedience, prosecutors don't search for 'who did it', they just grab the first person they can make a case against, because it is to their political and career advantage to clear cases quickly. 'Who did it' doesn't really matter. Only 'who can we nail' is important.
Therefore, if the defendant does not get a thorough and vigorous defense, then essentially, they can throw anyone into jail for any reason at any time.
Too many people think that the law only applies to other people, consequently they are more than willing to give up freedom for the illusion of security. What they fail to realize is that when you take rights and freedom away from one person, eventually, you take those same rights and that same freedom away from everyone.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Occasionally letting bad guys off is better than locking up innocent people.
One thing to be clear on: in most cases where someone is "getting off on a technicality" the evidence being excluded is both highly reliable and probative of guilt. The exception is Miranda violations, which result in "getting off" much less frequently than search and seizure violations. Search and seizure "technicalities" do not minimize the chances that the innocent are convicted. Rather, they minimize the chance that certain rights are violated during investigation.
It is the reasonable doubt standard and the procedural rights such as jury, counsel, trial, etc. that protect against the innocent being convicted, and violations of these rights seldom result in someone getting off. Generally, they result in new trials, which prosecutors win more often than lose.
To sum up: We let some guilty criminals off on "technicalities" to reduce incentive to police to violate the 4th amendment. We have a high standard for proving guilt (which results in lack of many more guilty people getting off) to reduce the chance of an innocent person being convicted.
The latter's effects are felt just as strongly in the cases that are never brought as in the cases that end in acquittal.
quote:'Who did it' doesn't really matter. Only 'who can we nail' is important.
I don't agree with the opening post, but a blanket accusation like this is just as wrong and unfair.
[ December 16, 2008, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:One thing to be clear on: in most cases where someone is "getting off on a technicality" the evidence being excluded is both highly reliable and probative of guilt. The exception is Miranda violations, which result in "getting off" much less frequently than search and seizure violations. Search and seizure "technicalities" do not minimize the chances that the innocent aren't convicted. Rather, they minimize the chance that certain rights are not violated during investigation.
Whoa, Dag. I'm sure what you're saying is correct, but I don't believe this is your finest moment in prose. Let's start with 'probative'. It seems to me that this is a technical term, and should probably be kept out of ordinary English. Certainly its meaning is not clear to me, it could be either "indicative to the extent of proof" or (in context) "counter-evidence". Next, you've got a triple negative. "Do not minimise the chance that the innocent are not convicted" is the same as "do not maximise the chance that the innocent are convicted". I must say I doubt this is what you intended. And then you do the same thing in the next sentence: "Minimize the chance that certain rights are not violated during investigation." This is the same as "Maximise the chance that certain rights are violated." Again, I very much doubt that this was your intention! Strunk and White would be your friend here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I fixed the negatives. As for "probative," it means "serving to prove," is not particularly technical, and is exactly the right word to convey the meaning I intended.
Strunk and White would not be my friend, assuming you meant "would have helped avoid this error." What might be useful is someone simply asking if I intended to convey what my words conveyed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Thank you for extending my vocabulary.
Strunk and White would tell you to avoid excessive use of negation; or possibly I am thinking of Orwell - ah yes, "Politics and the English Language":
quote:One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Cute. But "not unblack" has a level of meaning absent in "black", and I believe Dags is making this distinction deliberately.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As rivka points out, the meaning can be different. In this case, I was responding to the idea that letting some people off on technicalities helps prevent the conviction of the innocent. I was negating a previous proposition. "Minimizing" is the verb in that proposition.
That I did it incorrectly is a different issue altogether. The error did not arise from lack of knowledge of the proper way to do it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Dagonee, passive voice Rather, they minimize the chance that certain rights are violated during investigation.
quote:KoM, active voice Rather, they safeguard certain rights of the accused.
To some extent this is a matter of taste. The active voice would, however, have helped you avoid those triple negatives, as well as being shorter and (IMO) clearer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not clearer, because it's saying something different than what I said.
To make my sentence active and identical in meaning, one would say, "Rather, they minimize the chance that the government violates certain rights of the accused during investigation."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Thank you for extending my vocabulary.
Strunk and White would tell you to avoid excessive use of negation; or possibly I am thinking of Orwell - ah yes, "Politics and the English Language":
quote:One can cure oneself of the not un- formation by memorizing this sentence: A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.
Orwell feared that the use of negation would decrease the effective range of language, and render the public unable to express its desires. For instance, a description of someone as unpatriotic emphasizes the positive aspects of patriotism, and indicates that they are lacking, making unpatriotic a pejorative. However patriotism can itself be placed in a pejorative context, for example: rabid patriotism. Orwell observed that political movements and political speech turned this phenomenon against the expression of dissenting views.
KoM, I think I've asked this before, but how did you come to write perfectly in English? Have you always spoken it, or is it a second language? Do you have an accent?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Dagonee, passive voice Rather, they minimize the chance that certain rights are violated during investigation.
quote:KoM, active voice Rather, they safeguard certain rights of the accused.
To some extent this is a matter of taste. The active voice would, however, have helped you avoid those triple negatives, as well as being shorter and (IMO) clearer.
I believe both sentences are in fact in the active voice. In the first, a passive construction would read: "The chance that certain rights are violated during investigation is minimized by them." Dag is correct, the change to the verb "safeguard" effects the character of the action, but "minimize" is still in the active voice.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:KoM, I think I've asked this before, but how did you come to write perfectly in English?
Very simple: I didn't learn it from Americans.
quote:I believe both sentences are in fact in the active voice.
You're right. The distinction I was looking for is perhaps indirect versus direct. I disagree, though, that "safeguard" is sufficiently different from "minimise the chance of violation" to change the meaning.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It changes the meaning significantly. "Safeguard" does not imply minimization. If someone said "reduce" about an observed value and another said "minimize", would you think they were saying the same thing?
You also left off the important specifier "during investigation".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If someone said "reduce" about an observed value and another said "minimize", would you think they were saying the same thing?
I wouldn't, but I don't think this helps Dagonee, because if we're making the distinction this strong then 'minimise' is not the correct word; 'reduce' is. To minimise is to reduce as much as possible; it is clear that the laws in question do not do this. You could reduce the number of rights violations during investigations to zero by not having any investigations at all; that would be a true minimisation. Dagonee was using the word in its more usual and informal sense of "reduce as much as possible within unspecified constraints", which 'safeguard' expresses perfectly well and more briefly.
As for 'during investigation', that can readily be tacked onto my edited sentence if you prefer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee was using the word in its more usual and informal sense of "reduce as much as possible within unspecified constraints", which 'safeguard' expresses perfectly well and more briefly
I was using the word minimize in the colloquial sense, but the meaning of safeguard is not coextensive with the meaning of "reduce the number of violations." For example, the right to counsel safeguards certain other rights of the accused, not merely by reducing the number of violations (which it does as a general matter) but also increasing the likelihood of effective remedies to violations that still occur.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [QB]
quote:KoM, I think I've asked this before, but how did you come to write perfectly in English?
Very simple: I didn't learn it from Americans.
That's rather unexpectedly rude KoM. Did you know that I'm currently trying to support myself by teaching English? Do you find my English to be below your standards?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, we are now discussing semantics, which I won't bother with. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you, Dag.
quote:That's rather unexpectedly rude KoM. Did you know that I'm currently trying to support myself by teaching English? Do you find my English to be below your standards?
If you don't want snarky answers you should not ask snarky questions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ok, we are now discussing semantics, which I won't bother with. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you, Dag.
You're kidding, right? This is actually an internet version of candid camera, like the guy who sends his meal back 10 times and then finally decides he wasn't hungry.
The distinction I described above was one I specifically thought about when drafting my first post on this topic. It wasn't necessary to the point, which is why I didn't address it expressly, but it is an important one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Dude, I wasn't being snarky. I was honestly interested in how you became indistinguishable from a native speaker, at least in writing. Perhaps I shouldn't have written the word "perfectly," but I didn't want to write "natively," which is closer to what I meant, but doesn't work with the question. I was trying to say that you don't make mistakes, and wondering how it came to be that you know the language so well. The fact that you were quibbling over a fine point of language is ready proof of your facility with it. Disagreements over items like that are not indications that you know any less than me or anyone else.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, in that case my answer is still accurate, but a bit unspecific. I learned English by reading a huge amount of books.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Leave it to KoM to respond to a compliment with an insult.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm still trying to do that with Spanish, but I get so tired of it, often after less than an hour. You must have started when you were pretty young- at what point did it start being easy? I remember learning how to read in English; I started quite late, I think because I didn't get along very well in school. But after really starting to read in maybe the 4th or 5th grade, I was reading multiple books every week, and always wanted to read things way above my level. This really annoyed my parents because I would ask them to read things and explain them to me, because I didn't want to look up all the words in the dictionary.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Leave it to KoM to respond to a compliment with an insult.
I did taunt him recently by saying he'd gone mainstream and lost his edge on Hatrack... maybe that did it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Chiming in late.
quote: Rather, they minimize the chance that the government violates certain rights of the accused during investigation.
I'd say that to the layman who doesn't really understand the whole system, that looks the same as innocent people not getting locked up. I think I see your distinction, but I'm pretty sure respecting everyone's rights helps everyone in the long run.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd say that to the layman who doesn't really understand the whole system, that looks the same as innocent people not getting locked up.
Which is why I made the post, so that it might be clarified. Excluding evidence for search and seizure violations generally helps guilty people in the first instance. It is the secondary effects of exclusion - reducing the likelihood of an illegal search - that help innocent people.
Right to counsel and jury help both innocent and guilty people in the first instance.
Note: I hope it's obvious that I'm using "innocent" and "guilty" to mean whether the person committed the crime, not the legal definitions.
quote:I think I see your distinction, but I'm pretty sure respecting everyone's rights helps everyone in the long run.
Of course. My point was that it does it in entirely different ways depending on whether we're talking about the rights underlying so-called technicalities or other rights.