Poll: Would you ever be a defense lawyer?

[badgersprite]

Well, I'm in law school right now, so yeah.

I live in a different country and our legal system works differently from that in the US, so the conflict actually isn't that great. If you become a barrister (the one who does the talking in court) you basically have to take on any case that's given to you. Also, you can't knowingly lie to the court (people do anyway, but it's against your duty to the court to fabricate a case when you know your client is guilty in this country).

So yeah if I ever want to become a barrister or ever want to become a judge then that probably means defending people.

Here's an article from the unit I'm currently doing - I found it really interesting that addresses the topic of why people are defence lawyers (and yes that's how we spell it here): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2006/16.html

 

[dday4you]

well, if i could do all these:
yes, yes i will

 

[Yopaz]

Being a defense lawyer is no worse than being a prosecutor.
A defense lawyer sometimes try to get innocent people out of jail, sometimes guilty people out of jail.
A prosecutor sometimes try to get guilty people to jail, sometimes innocent people into jail.

I've been a defense lawyer on severl occasions... only in Ace Attorney, but I think that should count just the same... Only lsot one case, and in that case the guy who ended up in jail was guilty.

 

[Gurk]

Being a defense lawyer is no worse than being a prosecutor.
A defense lawyer sometimes try to get innocent people out of jail, sometimes guilty people out of jail.
A prosecutor sometimes try to get guilty people to jail, sometimes innocent people into jail.

Thank you for making me see this from a different light.

 

[Communist partisan]

I would love that job, the more psychos I save from jail the stronger the argument for a improved punishment system stand stronger and stronger.

Personally I wouldn't mind the accual job at all but I've always had some kind of murderous urge against rapists and murderers so I'm not sure if I could be able to have the job, I do not have any sympathy for the victims it's just incredible strong hate and rage against the perpetrator.

 

[RuralGamer]

Money doesn't substitute for conscience in my books; there is no way I could live with myself defending someone I knew was guilty in court.

 

[Soviet Steve]

It's not something I would particularly desire, but lawyers exist to distort the facts as much as possible in favour of their client, hence why so many of them end up politicians.

 

[Evil Moo]

I wouldn't want to be a lawyer of any sort. Mostly because I would find it incredibly tedious and I would probably have to spend most of my time looking through vast histories of legal precedents and such.

That said, I don't think I would have too much trouble defending or prosecuting whoever it came to me to argue for or against, if I were more inclined to be a lawyer.

Really though, I dislike the whole defence and prosecution format of criminal justice. There should be only one party that is as unbiased and objective as possible, collecting evidence, determining facts and the most likely set of events based upon what is known and then taking appropriate action based on the what is reasoned to have occurred.

 

[Gurk]

Edit: Okay I know this will just bring hate upon me and believe me, I in no way am making light of what happened. But that part in the article that said "stabbed his wife "a little bit"" just cracked me up. How the fuck do you stab someone "a little bit"? XD

Yeah, that's really funny.

 

[A Free Man]

snip

No, I absolutely understand.

I suppose when I originally asked this question I was still so furious about the results of today.
Now that I have calmed down though, I understand that being a defense lawyer is simply another way to pay the bills. Why I could never do it myself, I understand why there is a need for them and I should not think any less of those that represent defendants.

That sounds like a very reasonable answer. I should also add that on second thoughts from the limited number of sources I have (T.V shows hehe) the one aspect of being a lawyer (regardless of prosecution or defenese but perhaps defense especially as I would be the one doing it) I could never stand is if evidence is presented that proves beyond doubt a defendant is guilty but due to some technicality the evidence gets removed from the case. I don't know how often this happens as I mentioned I'm sure scandels like this happen more on T.V then in real life for the added drama. But I don't think I could ever deal with that, I understand the necessity of the laws as otherwise we'd have cops running rampages to steal evidence etc. But I still don't think I could ever really perpetrate it.

 

[latenightapplepie]

Yes. It's not a perversion of justice to represent a guilty person. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

 

[Vilcus]

You can't just lump everyone into a big giant pile like that. There are defense lawyers who defend guilty people, and their are prosecutors who viciously attack innocent people.

Also, despite what you may think, sympathy does have a place in the courtroom, if everyone was emotionally detached and only looked at the facts, then boatloads of innocent people would be shipped off to prison every day, and guilty people would be turned loose on the world. Context is important, and laying an emotional bedrock can help to create context.

It's a broken system, but untill we create robots that can read minds, and can never be made to deviate from the truth, we're stuck with it.

Also everyone has the right to defend themselves. That's why it's innocent untill proven guilty, I for one do not want to go back to the days where you were branded as guilty untill you could prove yourself innocent... those were horrible times.

 

[Marowit]

Just because someone is accused of a crime doesn't mean that they're guilty - look at the troves of Death Row inmates being acquitted decades after their conviction, because it comes to light that exculpatory evidence was buried in order to get a conviction.

I'd rather see a guilty person go free, than an innocent person be imprisoned.

The burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution; there's no ambiguity about that.

 

[Gurk]

Regardless of what happens to day, he's a dead man walking.

 

[Dags90]

Goodness no, I'd rather be a defense attorney.

But yeah, I'd have no moral problem with being a defense lawyer or any other sort of lawyer for a living. And I'd get to sign things as "Esquire" which is awesome.

 

[Chemical Alia]

Money's not an issue if I don't like the job. Working at Halliburton taught me that much. But defense attorneys are needed, and there's people who do things for both the right and wrong reasons. I don't think I'd like to be one.

 

[babinro]

Not every person being defended is actually guilty of said crime...I could defend someone in cases where I believe what I'm doing is right.

There would be a ton of cases in which I couldn't do my job because of the circumstances though. Example: situations like a breaking and entering where the robber gets injured in an act of self-defense by the home owner.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

I remember a Christian guy was asked how he could defend a client who admitted to him that they were guilty, especially if it was a serious offence (e.g. murder). He said that he had a duty to help the client as best he could, but he would go to the prosecutor and tell him 'look, this guy is guilty, it's up to you to get him for it' and then the onus was on the other party to convict him.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

the one aspect of being a lawyer (regardless of prosecution or defenese but perhaps defense especially as I would be the one doing it) I could never stand is if evidence is presented that proves beyond doubt a defendant is guilty but due to some technicality the evidence gets removed from the case. I don't know how often this happens as I mentioned I'm sure scandels like this happen more on T.V then in real life for the added drama. But I don't think I could ever deal with that, I understand the necessity of the laws as otherwise we'd have cops running rampages to steal evidence etc. But I still don't think I could ever really perpetrate it.

As a student we got a few lectures from a bailiff about planning control and enforcement, and I remember him telling us of a case that they busted a huge fuel laundering plant, caught the men running it, and hauled all the stuff away, but during the trial it came to light that due process had not been absolutely followed in aprehending the illegal material, so it was tossed out of court, and the guys got away scot free.

I found another story for a project about a guy in England who was taking medical waste and illegally storing and disposing it (he had over 100 tonnes on his land), and he admitted to all charges, but fought the case on the basis that when he was interviewed they ignored his right to silence (or something like that) which went against his human rights and European law, the case went right up to the House of Lords, but was thrown out, and he was charged.

I just couldn't work in those conditions, the dirty twisted tricks would drive me up the wall.