[ShadowWolf_IH]

he got a murderer off, great job being a lawyer.  i do however feel bad for his family.  i am sure that they will miss him.

[Ford Prefect]

That most certainly is a great job being a lawyer. It is his responsiblity under the law to defend his client to the best of his ability, and if the state cannot prove his guilt, then no one else has to.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

and here i thought it was about justice.  I am a firm believer that he was guilty.  and that justice was not served.

[Ford Prefect]

What you believe doesn't matter. If court proceedings were about the beliefs of you and me, we would be cavemen. The bottom line is that the burden of proof lies upon the accuser, and it is not the defense attorney's fault if the state cannot convince a jury of its argument's veracity.

[Taristin]

It's not a lawyer's duty to uphold justice, though, is it? He's sworn to defend his client. And it is illegal/immoral for him to 'do the right thing' even if he knows the bugger's guilty. That'd be the court's job.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

one of the bugs in the system....

[Goober5000]

I too wonder at the moral implications of a defense lawyer defending a person whom he knows is guilty.  Not necessarily related to any case in particular.

That said, if said person is acquitted, then that should be that.  One of the most important Constitutional rights is the protection from double jeopardy; and in any case I agree with Thomas Jefferson's statement, "Better to let 100 guilty men go free than to condemn one who is innocent".

[Liberator]

All this political stuff and here I was just honoring the memory of a man whose peers said was one of the finest of them.

[Goober5000]

Noted.  Thread split.

[Flipside]

I wouldn't mind lawyers if they worked within the system of law they are supposed to represent. When a lawyer gets someone let off for murder or Rape on arrest procedure or other Red-Tape, I cannot help thinking that the lawyers are more concerned about getting a 'rep' and thusly more money, than actually being part of the system designed to keep people safe.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
one of the bugs in the system....

Actually, that's one of the strengths of the system.  How else could it be fair, if both sides are not represented fairly and equally?  

By allowing a lawyer to do a worse job if he knows client his to be guilty, you risk lowering the burden of proof upon the prosecution of all cases.

 And you also risk violating the 2nd main purpose trials - to show that justice is served, and is blind (equal).  Any confession by a client to a lawyer is confidential - the public should (sadly, not true in the days of the media witchhunt) be able to have complete faith that the court makes its decision based upon the balance of evidence; if either side in the trial fails to perform to their best abilities, then it means that justice cannot be seen as fair and equal.

[Flipside]

Also, whilst the responsibilities remain the same, take a look at the comparative pay-scales between prosecution and defence. You'll quickly understand why all the competant lawyers soon end up as defence Personally, I think ALL lawyers should do both jobs.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Flipside
Also, whilst the responsibilities remain the same, take a look at the comparative pay-scales between prosecution and defence. You'll quickly understand why all the competant lawyers soon end up as defence Personally, I think ALL lawyers should do both jobs.

Albeit, is there not a converse where the defense lawyer is less well equipped than the state in cases with low-income defendents?

The way I see it is that there should be some form of maximum spend cap, to go with a minimum legal aid support (which we have, of course), to remove inequities.  i.e. to make sure that - weighted against their responsibilities - neither the prosecution or defense has a financial 'advantage'.