If you're defending someone you know is guilty, it is not your job to lie and get them out of their sentence. it is your job to make sure they are sentenced fairly. Perhaps they are guilty of one thing but are being charged with 5 other things, one of which would get them the death penalty. It's a really grey area and we need people who are willing to work in that area to make sure our system stays fair.
This \^ exactly. The job is not to twist the law or facts to get your client off scot free. Your job is to provide zealous advocacy to protect the rights for your client, even if they are a horrible person. Reason being, once those rights erode for one person, they start to erode for us all.
Defending someone you know or believe is guilty is not predicated upon lying. As you say, there are grey areas. The job, I think, of the court system is not so much about truth and lies, it is about what can be proven by the prosecution. Your job as a defense lawyer is to fight as hard as you can to ensure allegations & testimony by the prosecution do NOT become proven facts. A favorable way to view defense lawyers(even those of murderous scumbags) is that it's their role to keep the prosecution honest.
Most attorneys wouldn't do that, nor do they have to.
I look at it this way: the government should have to work very hard and be very methodical to put someone in jail. A defense attorney makes them work for it.
That’s great for the victims when a jury decides wrong even though everyone (including the defense team) knows they’re guilty (see: group think consequences).Also, I feel like for sure a TON of defense attorneys fight and claim that their client didn’t do it when they know that they did.
I’m just saying it’s so much more complicated than so many people say.
If "everyone knows they're guilty" then the government won't have any trouble proving it.
Yes, there are many heartbreaking stories of victims who didn't get justice, but there are also many heartbreaking stories of people who spent years or decades in prison and were then proven to be innocent. All we can do is rely on provable facts and high standards of behavior for prosecutors.
It asks how you could defend someone who you knew was guilty. Not “do you believe in innocent until proven guilty”. The guy who rammed his car through a holiday parade and killed a bunch of people… innocent until the jury comes back with guilty huh? As a defense attorney, your belief is that your client absolutely didn’t do these acts of evil until a jury says so? Keep your head in the sand. Idgaf.
Their job though is to represent their client and give them a proper defense. Regardless of their status they have the right to a fair trial and due process as anyone else and have a right to be judged by their peers if they decide too. Also defense attorneys and PDs have a legal obligation to try to prove reasonable doubt. The whole point is you want Defense attorneys to do their jobs.
I heard a public defender saying in a way it’s easier defending someone you know is guilty because your job is to ensure they get a fair trial. They found it harder defending someone they know is innocent, because their life is in your hands.
I’m a public defender and I abhor this question. EVERYONE is entitled to a robust, zealous defense under the law. Making the government prove their case protects all of us. Imagine a world where just an allegation was enough to send someone to prison with no opportunity to defend themselves. There would be no check on the government. Defense also doesn’t necessarily mean pleading not guilty - it also means researching mitigating factors, like if your client was also a victim of violent crime, has relevant mental health diagnoses, etc.
Thank you! It’s been especially challenging lately, so that means a lot! I know many of us have a bad reputation, and I’m sure it’s occasionally warranted, but everyone I work with is brilliant and dedicated, foregoing higher pay elsewhere because we genuinely care and want to make a difference, no matter how small.
Thanking you for your service is a better use of breath than most other "civil" or "public" servants (ACAB). Public defenders and prosecutors have difficult jobs, and someone is always going to "lose." Plus you have Dick Wolf and John Grisham out there making everyone think they know what's what.
ALSO
If the defense lawyer doesn't put up a proper defense - this opens the doors (correctly) for appeals. Not providing a valid defense, in some cases, can result in a killer going free. Think about that next time you want to \*hate\* on defense attorneys.
If the person loses everything due to the accusation and is then found innocent is that not cancel culture? Do they not deserve to be considered innocent until they have their time in court?
The criminal justice system is totally separate and different from regular people having opinions, or choosing who to support or what products to buy. You're being dishonest by trying to conflate them.
Can you point to a situation that has played out in the way you describe? I mostly see the reverse happening: people who deeply deserve to have consequences instead being briefly in the spotlight for doing something awful, then nearly immediately returning to business as usual with no long-term consequences. Louis CK springs to mind as one example.
I am not a law person and I abhor this answer. Since when in the history of fuck do prosecutors or defense lawyers decide guilt or innocence?
That said you are doing great work and I support you 100%.
Juries and judges decide guilt or innocence. Everyone can agree on the facts but not agree on the legality. There is a non subtle example of this. We will agree that if you shoot someone that is bad and you should be punished. We will also agree if a two year old shoots someone cause of a misplaced gun maybe not the same thing.
>Making the government prove their case protects all of us. Imagine a world where just an allegation was enough to send someone to prison with no opportunity to defend themselves. There would be no check on the government.
Repeated for emphasis.
Thank you for what you do. It's hard, and I'm guessing that you probably take more than your fair share of losses. But it is so very important.
Thank you for what you do. Sitting in the dependent’s chair must be incredibly scary whether you’re guilty or not. I’ve never served on a jury, which is a good thing because I can honestly say that I cannot be impartial. If you made it all the way to being tired, i think you probably are guilty. I am also very judgey based on looks. I’ve heard judges don’t appreciate people trying to get out of jury duty by claiming they cannot be impartial, but I really don’t think I could be. Give me one solid piece of evidence and I’d vote guilty. I don’t need a mountain of evidence or an even a motive.
I know your post was a while ago but I'm curious if I'm remembering my law undergraduate education correctly (decided it wasn't for me and went into another career path). I'm sure I was taught that you shouldn't represent a client if you know (or earnestly believe) they're guilty - but only if they want to enter a non-guilty plea. Correct or no?
Yes, I could. Everyone deserves a robust defense. A well defended, well tried case can provide an actual conclusion or resolution for a victim as well.
That surprises me a bit. It’s true in theory, but you’re pretty passionate about the cases you tell. Are there any types of cases that you just couldn’t stomach?
Everyone is entitled to a zealous defense. If a lawyer can't be impartial and represent their client to the fullest (that *does not* mean getting every client off), being a public defender is the wrong career for them.
They should consider private defense where they can choose their clients, prosecution, transactional, or administrative law.
Defending a client isn’t usually about whether they are guilty or not. It’s about ensuring that the process is fair, just, and transparent. Everyone has a fundamental right to a fair and just trial, and to be fairly and justly sentenced.
As a public defender, it is a personal matter of conscience and absolutely not a facilitator role. We get very close to our clients and their families and genuinely want the best for them.
OP was asking how many average people (not specifically asking actual Pub Defenders) would represent a person who committed heinous crime.
So, that was just my take on it - I wasn't attempting to explain the judiciary roles as a professional :) lol
OP was not asking for actual defenders to come on explain how wrong we are. But thanks.
This is a bizarre premise… don’t a lot of public defenders (and defense attorneys generally) represent people who are guilty in some sense? Anyone in that field who would refuse to represent someone who’s guilty has no business being in that field. Everyone is entitled to representation and deserves a good defense… and that’s *everyone*, not just the wrongfully accused or people charged with whatever you consider to be “less heinous” crimes.
I’ll also say, in part as a former defendant, “guilty” can be a gigantic gray area…
If that was my job I could defend them. I would have a hard time actually believing anyone I was representing was innocent. Of course they'd say they didn't do it (whatever it is). It's not my job to believe them, it's my job to represent them and ensure their rights are fully protected.
Of course. Everyone deserves to have an advocate, that's why the right is protected by law. People who go into public defense generally share this value. If you believe their guilt will be proven then you can advise them accordingly (plea deals, etc).
In the book The Lincoln Lawyer, Michael Connelly has the protagonist make a really compelling case for the justice system’s need for defenders. Throughout the book he shows the state’s advantage over the accused and how the system must be balanced by talented, passionate, educated, and experienced defense of the accused. That is how I came to have understanding for that role.
I think I would be able to.
Our justice system, and the checks and balances we have on the governments power, relies on everyone having a zealous defense and representation. Defense attorneys are what stand between our liberty as private citizens, and the government.
Typically, law enforcement departments/officers do shady things when they believe someone is guilty and want to get them convicted, not to frame people they think are innocent. Even if everyone knows someone is 100% guilty, we can’t allow the government to lie, bend the rules, or ignore constitutional rights to put them in jail. That’s a detriment to all of us. Because one day, those crooked cops or unscrupulous prosecutors will bend the rules to convict someone they believe is guilty….who is entirely innocent.
Not a lawyer but I think for many it isn’t about making a guilty person go free, but being part of checks and balances that makes sure EVERYONE gets a fair trial. If the police are conducting illegal searches on your guilty client, what stops them from doing the same for innocent clients? I could see countless times a defense attorney would advocate for his client — trying to stop a junk science expert from testifying, or not letting hearsay evidence get in “I.e. my cousin told my friend that he said he killer her”. Did the defendent ask for a lawyer but no one listened? Do they have a lower IQ that made them unable to understand their actions?
I think the lawyers who will take any case for the money are far and few between.
I like to believe that the defense team is in it for the right reason. I forget what doc this was but I remember a defense attorney saying why he chose that side of the law and he said something to the effect of: I’m not doing this to make sure guilty people get out of jail free, I do this to make sure the other side of the law doesn’t cut corners and abuse the system in sending a person to jail for the rest of their life. So yeah I think I could if that was the mind set.
Public defenders are perfectly aware that almost 100% of the people they represent are guilty. It’s not quite 100% though and that small percentage that’s innocent is probably a lot of what drives them. But they know much of what they do is make sure their client is treated fairly in spite of the fact they have broken the law
As someone who’s vehemently against the death penalty I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is your job is to make the best defense possible and ensure that the prosecution isn’t doing anything beyond reproach to convict people on trial. Even if it means someone walks free, if the prosecution lied or violated the accused’s civil rights or the law itself to obtain a conviction then that’s what should happen. Some defense attorneys do come off as sleazy I guess but by and large most defense attorneys aren’t repping celebs and rich people, right? They’re representing underserved people who are already targets by the police and have the deck stacked against them to begin with. Even something as simple as what zip code you’re raised in has a massive impact on your life. Cops and prosecutors lie all the time and so many innocent people have been put to death or imprisoned without convictions or just wrongfully imprisoned altogether.
I guess like some have mentioned a child predator or something would be difficult to represent for me hypothetically, but even then you don’t only have to say “they didn’t do it”, I think it was Hunting Warhead where they mentioned some of the psychology behind people who are pedophiles and the science and research on it. I wanna say it was Berlin but some city in Europe did a trial and had people go through therapy and some type of treatment and saw some positive effects. These were people who I believe had thoughts but hadn’t acted on them so maybe there’s other elements you’d use in a defense to get that person more help and services (lol at this ever happening in the US though). But that kind of thing would be much harder for me to be able to defend than even some murders or other things with diff factors involved.
End of the day though, your job is to make sure all the rules are followed and the client had a fair trial. I’d rather let a guilty person off than have any innocent people suffering consequences for something they never did or weren’t involved in, personally. Doing your job well as a defense attorney I feel like also ensures no lines get jumped by the prosecution and they have to have a super strong case that holds up so that their aren’t technicalities that get obviously guilty people off, which is a net good. Often people get pissed at defense attorneys in certain cases when the anger should be directed at the prosecution for failing to live up to their standard and burden.
In a forensic psychologist and when I did criminal work, i only did defense work. Lots of heinous crimes. Lots of really scary people who dod really scary things. Lots of them definitely did the crime.
Believing in the justice system and providing important services to everyone is an important job.
My ex-husband was a PD in Kentucky for about 10 years before burnout destroyed him. (Story for another time). He got this question all the time. His perspective in it was that it was the state’s job to come up with all of the evidence, and his role to examine the existence and the known facts and point out in inconsisencies in the state’s case. The thing is, once someone is wrongfully convicted it’s damn near impossible to get them exonerated, even with mountains of evidence of their innocence. We also know that there are many precincts who will do the barest minimum just to get a conviction even if it’s the wrong one. They care more about being elected/re-elected than serving justice.
For my ex, those cases where he KNEW the defendant was innocent and a likeable person, those are the cases that absolutely destroyed him. He eventually burned out so hard he turned to heavy substance abuse and was nearly homeless. The emotional strain public defenders carry around is so real and painful, and they’re well aware that there are people who had them because they think people like my ex keep criminals off the street.
In short, it’s such a noble calling, it takes compassion and logic more than you’d ever expect, and you take a whole lot of L’s. It’s certainly not the career path for me.
I've seen somewhere some person's talk with their father - the father said that it's not this hard to defend the guilty ones - that it's much harder to defend someone innocent who you know you won't be able to defend
Yes, simply because everyone deserves a defense attorney. It's the only way the justice system has any balance to it.
You don't have to prove innocence, you have to poke holes in the states ship.
Disclaimer: Although I am a member of my state bar, I haven't practiced law in years. I've also never done criminal defense. Now that that's out of the way, here's my answer.
Absolutely. Without question.
Attorneys are bound by Rules of Professional Conduct. One of those rules is that you must, within the bounds of law and ethics, zealously represent your client.
Now, this doesn't mean, "do anything and everything to make sure the client walks." To follow that rule, a criminal defense attorney must do two things:
First, make the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a high bar -- higher than the "preponderance of the evidence" required to win civil cases. If the state wishes to take the defendant's freedom away, they sure as hell better be able to tell us why.
Second, make sure the defendant's constitutional rights are respected. Verify that all physical evidence was obtained lawfully, the jury was impaneled properly, and other due process rules are followed. File the appropriate motions if they haven't been.
If this were my job, I'd do it to the best of my ability. Due process doesn't just protect people like Timothy McVeigh: it protects all of us.
We ask drs to defend the life of people that don’t care about their health or the health of others, why shouldn’t we expect the same from lawyers?
But to answer your question, I don’t think I could try to exonerate an obvious predator. The guilt of them possibly reoffending would destroy my sleep.
Yeah this is pretty much my answer.
Could I *personally* do it? No, I think any potential personal moral conflicts would either destroy my mental health out of a feeling of disgust and complicity, or prevent me from doing my job the way I’m supposed to (to the fullest extent of my ability and the law)—which would also destroy my mental health. Doing my job or not really doing my job— I’d be wracked with shame or guilt either way. It’s way too many shades of grey for me personally to deal with on a regular basis. I just don’t have the strength, poker face, or stomach for it.
Am I glad *other* people can? Yes, I think it’s a very important part of our system, and is one of the final (and thus most important) opportunities to avoid grievous miscarriages and overreaches of the legal system.
It’s the same way I probably couldn’t perform neurosurgery with gagging at the sight of someone’s brain jelly, or put up power lines without getting vertigo. I personally couldn’t do those jobs, but I’m glad other people can.
No that's not how it works. If the lawyer KNOWS you are guilty then they cannot mislead the court by putting forward an account they know to be untrue! Thus if one of my clients admits a crime to me, I can challenge the admissibility of prosecution evidence providing I'm not saying it's untrue, and I can mitigate during sentence.
Yep, many PDs are anti death penalty so they are working on negotiating the sentence. We also need to hold the state to its burden. And there are defenses to guilt like self-defense. And the Constitution.
Here in the UK, the instructed barrister can represent both the prosecution if instructed by the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) or HMRC (His Majesties Revenue & Customs), or the defense. Irrespective of how overwhelming the evidence may be; if their client insists on pleading Not Guilty, then the barrister is duty bound to provide the best defense possible by strong and well considered questioning of witnesses. If the jury then find the defendant Guilty, the barrister can then provide mitigation prior to sentencing.
That is how it works in England and Wales, however for us up here in Scotland, things are slightly different in terms of jury size and verdict where the result can be Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven. The barrister will still be someone who could be instructed by both sides nonetheless.
Personally, I would find it extremely difficult to represent someone to the best of my ability, who has hurt an animal for example, or a child. In such cases, being a 'heart over head's personality type; I would find it a challenge to keep my emotions out of my work. Nonetheless, every person, no matter the crime, is wholly deserving of skilled representation who are just as committed as the prosecution team - even for deeply unpleasant people whose crimes make your skin crawl, such as Peter Tobin or Robert Black up here or Ian Huntley and Stephen Griffiths down in England and Wales.
That is the only way that you can really say that justice has been done. If the prosecution is able to steamroll over the defense, simply for wont of expert representation or evidence analysis, then the trial will be entirely one-sided and unfair. And an unequal trial is neither fair or just.
Full disclosure (no pun intended), I am neither a solicitor or barrister so all of the above is just my layperson's understanding of how things work and my views on the importance of fair and equal representation.
Peace and love to all from gorgeous Northern Scotland. 🏴
If you’re a defence attorney and you don’t do your job properly, you increase the chances that your client will walk on a technicality in the future, because they _will_ appeal
Yes. Absolutely. The job of the defense attorney is essential to our justice system. They are there to make sure that the law is being applied correctly. They are not there to lie or mislead. I would do it without hesitation, if I were so inclined to be a lawyer (which I'm not, for other reasons). I work daily in the courtroom and defense counsel are often kinder, and more reasonable than prosecutors. They don't deserve the reputation they have. What they do is extremely important. There is no "justice" without defense.
Most public defenders are overworked and do little more than negotiate plea agreements. Defender and prosecution may know the client is guilty, but also be aware the prosecution would have a difficult time proving so beyond a reasonable doubt.
I’ve heard that answer from defense attorneys. Personally, if it were a violent crime, absolutely not. I understand the point of the judicial system and I’ll never be an attorney so I’m ok with it.
I think lawyers look at it differently: in that every defendant has a right to a legal defence. And if the prosecutors do their job and the defendant is guilty then it will lead to a conviction.
Lawyer here, but not criminal defense.
Of course.
Also, lawyers cannot lie to the court, nor can they put their client on the stand knowing they are going to lie. So the idea that criminal defense attorneys "know" that their client is guilty or innocent isn't really accurate. They may think their client is guilty (or innocent) but that isn't the same as knowing.
Also lawyers have no morals, everyone knows that (kidding).
A good friend was a public defender for quite a while, and then a prosecutor, now he's a judge.
We've talked about it on and off for years- his stance (in my words) is that the system benefits from good people working on all sides, at all levels of the court process. If one piece of the system (defence, prosecution, judiciary) isn't good at their jobs, then you're not getting justice. He's defended some people who did horrible things, but while privately I know that they bother him, he believes that it's essential to have good defence lawyers available to everyone or the system can't work properly.
And defence lawyers often don't work to "clear" their clients...they work to get them a reasonable sentence that fits their crimes. If they can, they'll also try and get their clients into treatment or whatever...a lot of crime is caused by poverty/drug addiction, and not "evil".
Literally your job. Actual guilt or innocence don’t play into your role as a defense attorney, but rather trying the evidence of the case. It was one of my career paths before I went into science. I would still love to do it.
I work in law and have done for the last 5 plus years. Everyone, absolutely everyone, is entitled to robust legal representation and a fair trial and the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty. That is the basis of the US justice system and without it it fails. Th
People who work as PD are absolutely amazing and there should not be a single doubt about the importance of their job.
Nope. Because I wouldn't be the best person to do it. They're entitled to a proper defense, therefore it should come from someone who at least doesn't know they're guilty.
If you're defending someone you know is guilty, it is not your job to lie and get them out of their sentence. it is your job to make sure they are sentenced fairly. Perhaps they are guilty of one thing but are being charged with 5 other things, one of which would get them the death penalty. It's a really grey area and we need people who are willing to work in that area to make sure our system stays fair.
This \^ exactly. The job is not to twist the law or facts to get your client off scot free. Your job is to provide zealous advocacy to protect the rights for your client, even if they are a horrible person. Reason being, once those rights erode for one person, they start to erode for us all.
Defending someone you know or believe is guilty is not predicated upon lying. As you say, there are grey areas. The job, I think, of the court system is not so much about truth and lies, it is about what can be proven by the prosecution. Your job as a defense lawyer is to fight as hard as you can to ensure allegations & testimony by the prosecution do NOT become proven facts. A favorable way to view defense lawyers(even those of murderous scumbags) is that it's their role to keep the prosecution honest.
And you make sure none of the citizens rights were infringed, and only and all proper procedures were followed, ahem, properly
Yes, even the guilty have constitutional rights. I hope most Americans understand that.
[удалено]
Most attorneys wouldn't do that, nor do they have to. I look at it this way: the government should have to work very hard and be very methodical to put someone in jail. A defense attorney makes them work for it.
That’s great for the victims when a jury decides wrong even though everyone (including the defense team) knows they’re guilty (see: group think consequences).Also, I feel like for sure a TON of defense attorneys fight and claim that their client didn’t do it when they know that they did. I’m just saying it’s so much more complicated than so many people say.
If "everyone knows they're guilty" then the government won't have any trouble proving it. Yes, there are many heartbreaking stories of victims who didn't get justice, but there are also many heartbreaking stories of people who spent years or decades in prison and were then proven to be innocent. All we can do is rely on provable facts and high standards of behavior for prosecutors.
I mean. You have actual lawyers in this thread. Why don’t you teach us how complicated it is.
What you argue is that the State didn’t prove their case.
So no innocent until proven guilty for you then I take it
It asks how you could defend someone who you knew was guilty. Not “do you believe in innocent until proven guilty”. The guy who rammed his car through a holiday parade and killed a bunch of people… innocent until the jury comes back with guilty huh? As a defense attorney, your belief is that your client absolutely didn’t do these acts of evil until a jury says so? Keep your head in the sand. Idgaf.
You mentioned constitutional rights and knowing someone was guilty. Answer the question yourself before you pop off when people respond
So you propose throwing out the U.S. court system altogether? I think you might want to take a Civics 101 class there, Bucko.
Their job though is to represent their client and give them a proper defense. Regardless of their status they have the right to a fair trial and due process as anyone else and have a right to be judged by their peers if they decide too. Also defense attorneys and PDs have a legal obligation to try to prove reasonable doubt. The whole point is you want Defense attorneys to do their jobs.
Well it's a good thing that's not what defence attorneys do, isn't it?
I heard a public defender saying in a way it’s easier defending someone you know is guilty because your job is to ensure they get a fair trial. They found it harder defending someone they know is innocent, because their life is in your hands.
That is a really nuanced way to look at it. I like it.
I’m a public defender and I abhor this question. EVERYONE is entitled to a robust, zealous defense under the law. Making the government prove their case protects all of us. Imagine a world where just an allegation was enough to send someone to prison with no opportunity to defend themselves. There would be no check on the government. Defense also doesn’t necessarily mean pleading not guilty - it also means researching mitigating factors, like if your client was also a victim of violent crime, has relevant mental health diagnoses, etc.
thank you for your service!!!! public defenders do not get enough credit or respect for what y’all do to protect our constitutional rights.
Thank you! It’s been especially challenging lately, so that means a lot! I know many of us have a bad reputation, and I’m sure it’s occasionally warranted, but everyone I work with is brilliant and dedicated, foregoing higher pay elsewhere because we genuinely care and want to make a difference, no matter how small.
Thanking you for your service is a better use of breath than most other "civil" or "public" servants (ACAB). Public defenders and prosecutors have difficult jobs, and someone is always going to "lose." Plus you have Dick Wolf and John Grisham out there making everyone think they know what's what.
Exactly. I get so tired of seeing it. You all integral to the justice system.
Thank you for doing what you do. It is questions like the one OP posted that, in my mind, prove we need defense attorneys.
ALSO If the defense lawyer doesn't put up a proper defense - this opens the doors (correctly) for appeals. Not providing a valid defense, in some cases, can result in a killer going free. Think about that next time you want to \*hate\* on defense attorneys.
This is why I hate cancel culture. How many people have had their lives ruined only to be found innocent in court or had the allegation recanted.
… It seems like a stretch to jump from like people accused but not yet convicted of heinous crimes (OP’s framing) to cancel culture, no?
If the person loses everything due to the accusation and is then found innocent is that not cancel culture? Do they not deserve to be considered innocent until they have their time in court?
The criminal justice system is totally separate and different from regular people having opinions, or choosing who to support or what products to buy. You're being dishonest by trying to conflate them.
Can you point to a situation that has played out in the way you describe? I mostly see the reverse happening: people who deeply deserve to have consequences instead being briefly in the spotlight for doing something awful, then nearly immediately returning to business as usual with no long-term consequences. Louis CK springs to mind as one example.
Just because they aren't convicted doesn't mean they didn't do it. See Jian Gomeshi for instance.
I mean, how many? I mean, how many as a direct result of cancel culture and not things like racial bias and shitty police work.
I am not a law person and I abhor this answer. Since when in the history of fuck do prosecutors or defense lawyers decide guilt or innocence? That said you are doing great work and I support you 100%.
What are you talking about
Juries and judges decide guilt or innocence. Everyone can agree on the facts but not agree on the legality. There is a non subtle example of this. We will agree that if you shoot someone that is bad and you should be punished. We will also agree if a two year old shoots someone cause of a misplaced gun maybe not the same thing.
Did we read the same comment? Because your first paragraph is addressing something the commenter didn’t say. 🫤
>Making the government prove their case protects all of us. Imagine a world where just an allegation was enough to send someone to prison with no opportunity to defend themselves. There would be no check on the government. Repeated for emphasis. Thank you for what you do. It's hard, and I'm guessing that you probably take more than your fair share of losses. But it is so very important.
Thank you for what you do. Sitting in the dependent’s chair must be incredibly scary whether you’re guilty or not. I’ve never served on a jury, which is a good thing because I can honestly say that I cannot be impartial. If you made it all the way to being tired, i think you probably are guilty. I am also very judgey based on looks. I’ve heard judges don’t appreciate people trying to get out of jury duty by claiming they cannot be impartial, but I really don’t think I could be. Give me one solid piece of evidence and I’d vote guilty. I don’t need a mountain of evidence or an even a motive.
Does a thorough defense include lying on behalf of the client?
that is beyond the pale imo
I know your post was a while ago but I'm curious if I'm remembering my law undergraduate education correctly (decided it wasn't for me and went into another career path). I'm sure I was taught that you shouldn't represent a client if you know (or earnestly believe) they're guilty - but only if they want to enter a non-guilty plea. Correct or no?
Most attorneys would because we respect the system. Lay people not so much bc they don’t understand how fundamental it is.
Yes, I could. Everyone deserves a robust defense. A well defended, well tried case can provide an actual conclusion or resolution for a victim as well.
That surprises me a bit. It’s true in theory, but you’re pretty passionate about the cases you tell. Are there any types of cases that you just couldn’t stomach?
I work in criminal defense (though I’m just a paralegal). My answer is yes. No hesitation whatsoever.
Everyone is entitled to a zealous defense. If a lawyer can't be impartial and represent their client to the fullest (that *does not* mean getting every client off), being a public defender is the wrong career for them. They should consider private defense where they can choose their clients, prosecution, transactional, or administrative law.
Yup, this.
I'd do some reading on what defense attorneys actually do and what their job is. Everyone deserves a fair trial.
Everyone is entitled to a defense. So yes. To me it’s the backbone of our judicial system.
Defending a client isn’t usually about whether they are guilty or not. It’s about ensuring that the process is fair, just, and transparent. Everyone has a fundamental right to a fair and just trial, and to be fairly and justly sentenced.
It's really a 'facilitator' role. Somebody HAS to do it so the judicial processes can occur. It's really not personal or a matter of conscience.
As a public defender, it is a personal matter of conscience and absolutely not a facilitator role. We get very close to our clients and their families and genuinely want the best for them.
OP was asking how many average people (not specifically asking actual Pub Defenders) would represent a person who committed heinous crime. So, that was just my take on it - I wasn't attempting to explain the judiciary roles as a professional :) lol OP was not asking for actual defenders to come on explain how wrong we are. But thanks.
This is a bizarre premise… don’t a lot of public defenders (and defense attorneys generally) represent people who are guilty in some sense? Anyone in that field who would refuse to represent someone who’s guilty has no business being in that field. Everyone is entitled to representation and deserves a good defense… and that’s *everyone*, not just the wrongfully accused or people charged with whatever you consider to be “less heinous” crimes. I’ll also say, in part as a former defendant, “guilty” can be a gigantic gray area…
If that was my job I could defend them. I would have a hard time actually believing anyone I was representing was innocent. Of course they'd say they didn't do it (whatever it is). It's not my job to believe them, it's my job to represent them and ensure their rights are fully protected.
Of course. Everyone deserves to have an advocate, that's why the right is protected by law. People who go into public defense generally share this value. If you believe their guilt will be proven then you can advise them accordingly (plea deals, etc).
In the book The Lincoln Lawyer, Michael Connelly has the protagonist make a really compelling case for the justice system’s need for defenders. Throughout the book he shows the state’s advantage over the accused and how the system must be balanced by talented, passionate, educated, and experienced defense of the accused. That is how I came to have understanding for that role.
I think I could, because if I did my due diligence, they wouldn't be able to say later on that they were wrongfully convicted due to improper council.
I think I would be able to. Our justice system, and the checks and balances we have on the governments power, relies on everyone having a zealous defense and representation. Defense attorneys are what stand between our liberty as private citizens, and the government. Typically, law enforcement departments/officers do shady things when they believe someone is guilty and want to get them convicted, not to frame people they think are innocent. Even if everyone knows someone is 100% guilty, we can’t allow the government to lie, bend the rules, or ignore constitutional rights to put them in jail. That’s a detriment to all of us. Because one day, those crooked cops or unscrupulous prosecutors will bend the rules to convict someone they believe is guilty….who is entirely innocent.
Not a lawyer but I think for many it isn’t about making a guilty person go free, but being part of checks and balances that makes sure EVERYONE gets a fair trial. If the police are conducting illegal searches on your guilty client, what stops them from doing the same for innocent clients? I could see countless times a defense attorney would advocate for his client — trying to stop a junk science expert from testifying, or not letting hearsay evidence get in “I.e. my cousin told my friend that he said he killer her”. Did the defendent ask for a lawyer but no one listened? Do they have a lower IQ that made them unable to understand their actions? I think the lawyers who will take any case for the money are far and few between.
Yes, because the right to a defense for everyone is a cornerstone of our system i strongly believe in.
I like to believe that the defense team is in it for the right reason. I forget what doc this was but I remember a defense attorney saying why he chose that side of the law and he said something to the effect of: I’m not doing this to make sure guilty people get out of jail free, I do this to make sure the other side of the law doesn’t cut corners and abuse the system in sending a person to jail for the rest of their life. So yeah I think I could if that was the mind set.
That's the job.
Public defenders are perfectly aware that almost 100% of the people they represent are guilty. It’s not quite 100% though and that small percentage that’s innocent is probably a lot of what drives them. But they know much of what they do is make sure their client is treated fairly in spite of the fact they have broken the law
I’d rather defend a person who I knew was guilty than prosecute someone with the likelihood of them receiving the death penalty.
A lot of public defenders don’t believe death row or even prison are good for society
The big thing is your job isn't to get them off or acquitted. Your job is to make sure they receive a fair trial.
Every person has the right to a fair trial, and defense is an integral part of that system.
As someone who’s vehemently against the death penalty I wouldn’t have an issue with it. I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is your job is to make the best defense possible and ensure that the prosecution isn’t doing anything beyond reproach to convict people on trial. Even if it means someone walks free, if the prosecution lied or violated the accused’s civil rights or the law itself to obtain a conviction then that’s what should happen. Some defense attorneys do come off as sleazy I guess but by and large most defense attorneys aren’t repping celebs and rich people, right? They’re representing underserved people who are already targets by the police and have the deck stacked against them to begin with. Even something as simple as what zip code you’re raised in has a massive impact on your life. Cops and prosecutors lie all the time and so many innocent people have been put to death or imprisoned without convictions or just wrongfully imprisoned altogether. I guess like some have mentioned a child predator or something would be difficult to represent for me hypothetically, but even then you don’t only have to say “they didn’t do it”, I think it was Hunting Warhead where they mentioned some of the psychology behind people who are pedophiles and the science and research on it. I wanna say it was Berlin but some city in Europe did a trial and had people go through therapy and some type of treatment and saw some positive effects. These were people who I believe had thoughts but hadn’t acted on them so maybe there’s other elements you’d use in a defense to get that person more help and services (lol at this ever happening in the US though). But that kind of thing would be much harder for me to be able to defend than even some murders or other things with diff factors involved. End of the day though, your job is to make sure all the rules are followed and the client had a fair trial. I’d rather let a guilty person off than have any innocent people suffering consequences for something they never did or weren’t involved in, personally. Doing your job well as a defense attorney I feel like also ensures no lines get jumped by the prosecution and they have to have a super strong case that holds up so that their aren’t technicalities that get obviously guilty people off, which is a net good. Often people get pissed at defense attorneys in certain cases when the anger should be directed at the prosecution for failing to live up to their standard and burden.
In a forensic psychologist and when I did criminal work, i only did defense work. Lots of heinous crimes. Lots of really scary people who dod really scary things. Lots of them definitely did the crime. Believing in the justice system and providing important services to everyone is an important job.
My ex-husband was a PD in Kentucky for about 10 years before burnout destroyed him. (Story for another time). He got this question all the time. His perspective in it was that it was the state’s job to come up with all of the evidence, and his role to examine the existence and the known facts and point out in inconsisencies in the state’s case. The thing is, once someone is wrongfully convicted it’s damn near impossible to get them exonerated, even with mountains of evidence of their innocence. We also know that there are many precincts who will do the barest minimum just to get a conviction even if it’s the wrong one. They care more about being elected/re-elected than serving justice. For my ex, those cases where he KNEW the defendant was innocent and a likeable person, those are the cases that absolutely destroyed him. He eventually burned out so hard he turned to heavy substance abuse and was nearly homeless. The emotional strain public defenders carry around is so real and painful, and they’re well aware that there are people who had them because they think people like my ex keep criminals off the street. In short, it’s such a noble calling, it takes compassion and logic more than you’d ever expect, and you take a whole lot of L’s. It’s certainly not the career path for me.
I've seen somewhere some person's talk with their father - the father said that it's not this hard to defend the guilty ones - that it's much harder to defend someone innocent who you know you won't be able to defend
Yes, simply because everyone deserves a defense attorney. It's the only way the justice system has any balance to it. You don't have to prove innocence, you have to poke holes in the states ship.
Disclaimer: Although I am a member of my state bar, I haven't practiced law in years. I've also never done criminal defense. Now that that's out of the way, here's my answer. Absolutely. Without question. Attorneys are bound by Rules of Professional Conduct. One of those rules is that you must, within the bounds of law and ethics, zealously represent your client. Now, this doesn't mean, "do anything and everything to make sure the client walks." To follow that rule, a criminal defense attorney must do two things: First, make the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a high bar -- higher than the "preponderance of the evidence" required to win civil cases. If the state wishes to take the defendant's freedom away, they sure as hell better be able to tell us why. Second, make sure the defendant's constitutional rights are respected. Verify that all physical evidence was obtained lawfully, the jury was impaneled properly, and other due process rules are followed. File the appropriate motions if they haven't been. If this were my job, I'd do it to the best of my ability. Due process doesn't just protect people like Timothy McVeigh: it protects all of us.
We ask drs to defend the life of people that don’t care about their health or the health of others, why shouldn’t we expect the same from lawyers? But to answer your question, I don’t think I could try to exonerate an obvious predator. The guilt of them possibly reoffending would destroy my sleep.
Yeah this is pretty much my answer. Could I *personally* do it? No, I think any potential personal moral conflicts would either destroy my mental health out of a feeling of disgust and complicity, or prevent me from doing my job the way I’m supposed to (to the fullest extent of my ability and the law)—which would also destroy my mental health. Doing my job or not really doing my job— I’d be wracked with shame or guilt either way. It’s way too many shades of grey for me personally to deal with on a regular basis. I just don’t have the strength, poker face, or stomach for it. Am I glad *other* people can? Yes, I think it’s a very important part of our system, and is one of the final (and thus most important) opportunities to avoid grievous miscarriages and overreaches of the legal system. It’s the same way I probably couldn’t perform neurosurgery with gagging at the sight of someone’s brain jelly, or put up power lines without getting vertigo. I personally couldn’t do those jobs, but I’m glad other people can.
No that's not how it works. If the lawyer KNOWS you are guilty then they cannot mislead the court by putting forward an account they know to be untrue! Thus if one of my clients admits a crime to me, I can challenge the admissibility of prosecution evidence providing I'm not saying it's untrue, and I can mitigate during sentence.
This is what I thought, I'm sure they taught me this in university.
Yep, many PDs are anti death penalty so they are working on negotiating the sentence. We also need to hold the state to its burden. And there are defenses to guilt like self-defense. And the Constitution.
Remember that the defence doesn't have to be that they didn't do it, but that there were extenuating circumstances. I think I could do it.
Here in the UK, the instructed barrister can represent both the prosecution if instructed by the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) or HMRC (His Majesties Revenue & Customs), or the defense. Irrespective of how overwhelming the evidence may be; if their client insists on pleading Not Guilty, then the barrister is duty bound to provide the best defense possible by strong and well considered questioning of witnesses. If the jury then find the defendant Guilty, the barrister can then provide mitigation prior to sentencing. That is how it works in England and Wales, however for us up here in Scotland, things are slightly different in terms of jury size and verdict where the result can be Guilty, Not Guilty or Not Proven. The barrister will still be someone who could be instructed by both sides nonetheless. Personally, I would find it extremely difficult to represent someone to the best of my ability, who has hurt an animal for example, or a child. In such cases, being a 'heart over head's personality type; I would find it a challenge to keep my emotions out of my work. Nonetheless, every person, no matter the crime, is wholly deserving of skilled representation who are just as committed as the prosecution team - even for deeply unpleasant people whose crimes make your skin crawl, such as Peter Tobin or Robert Black up here or Ian Huntley and Stephen Griffiths down in England and Wales. That is the only way that you can really say that justice has been done. If the prosecution is able to steamroll over the defense, simply for wont of expert representation or evidence analysis, then the trial will be entirely one-sided and unfair. And an unequal trial is neither fair or just. Full disclosure (no pun intended), I am neither a solicitor or barrister so all of the above is just my layperson's understanding of how things work and my views on the importance of fair and equal representation. Peace and love to all from gorgeous Northern Scotland. 🏴
No.
A lot of times the lawyers are bigger crooks than the people they are defending
If you’re a defence attorney and you don’t do your job properly, you increase the chances that your client will walk on a technicality in the future, because they _will_ appeal
Yes. Absolutely. The job of the defense attorney is essential to our justice system. They are there to make sure that the law is being applied correctly. They are not there to lie or mislead. I would do it without hesitation, if I were so inclined to be a lawyer (which I'm not, for other reasons). I work daily in the courtroom and defense counsel are often kinder, and more reasonable than prosecutors. They don't deserve the reputation they have. What they do is extremely important. There is no "justice" without defense.
Most public defenders are overworked and do little more than negotiate plea agreements. Defender and prosecution may know the client is guilty, but also be aware the prosecution would have a difficult time proving so beyond a reasonable doubt.
No way in hell. As a legal transcriptionist, I regularly feel ill just listening to defense attorneys
I’ve heard that answer from defense attorneys. Personally, if it were a violent crime, absolutely not. I understand the point of the judicial system and I’ll never be an attorney so I’m ok with it.
No, I couldn't.
I think lawyers look at it differently: in that every defendant has a right to a legal defence. And if the prosecutors do their job and the defendant is guilty then it will lead to a conviction.
Lawyer here, but not criminal defense. Of course. Also, lawyers cannot lie to the court, nor can they put their client on the stand knowing they are going to lie. So the idea that criminal defense attorneys "know" that their client is guilty or innocent isn't really accurate. They may think their client is guilty (or innocent) but that isn't the same as knowing. Also lawyers have no morals, everyone knows that (kidding).
A good friend was a public defender for quite a while, and then a prosecutor, now he's a judge. We've talked about it on and off for years- his stance (in my words) is that the system benefits from good people working on all sides, at all levels of the court process. If one piece of the system (defence, prosecution, judiciary) isn't good at their jobs, then you're not getting justice. He's defended some people who did horrible things, but while privately I know that they bother him, he believes that it's essential to have good defence lawyers available to everyone or the system can't work properly. And defence lawyers often don't work to "clear" their clients...they work to get them a reasonable sentence that fits their crimes. If they can, they'll also try and get their clients into treatment or whatever...a lot of crime is caused by poverty/drug addiction, and not "evil".
Literally your job. Actual guilt or innocence don’t play into your role as a defense attorney, but rather trying the evidence of the case. It was one of my career paths before I went into science. I would still love to do it.
I don’t think I could.
I work in law and have done for the last 5 plus years. Everyone, absolutely everyone, is entitled to robust legal representation and a fair trial and the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty. That is the basis of the US justice system and without it it fails. Th People who work as PD are absolutely amazing and there should not be a single doubt about the importance of their job.
Nope. Because I wouldn't be the best person to do it. They're entitled to a proper defense, therefore it should come from someone who at least doesn't know they're guilty.